Appeal No. 96-1766
Application 08/218,822
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim subject matter
which the applicant regards as his invention.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Maurer is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable "over a well known photographic
technique in view of the acknowledged prior art" is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as lacking "support" in the
specification is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 7-10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007