Appeal No. 96-1366
Application 08/105,617
Rather than reiterate the entire arguments of the
appellants and the examiner in support of their respective
positions, reference is made to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
11) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 15) for the full
exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’
specification and claims, the applied references and the
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determination that the rejections of the examiner should be
sustained. Our reasons follow.
Turning first to the examiner’s rejection of claim 3
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we initially note
that the purpose of the requirement stated in this paragraph
is to provide those who would endeavor in future enterprise to
approach the area circumscribed by the claims of the patent
with the adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007