Appeal No. 96-1119
Application 07/690,176
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the examiner as support for the prior art
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the
briefs along with the examiner’s rationale in support of the
rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 particularly point out
the invention in a manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We are also of the view that claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 are directed
to appropriate subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Finally,
it is our view that the invention as set forth in claims 2, 4,
6 and 8 is not fully met by the disclosures of Kneib or
Fowler. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6 and
8 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The
examiner’s final rejection made only a single objection to the
claims as follows:
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007