Appeal No. 96-3923
Application 08/309,790
Claims 15-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellants
regard as the invention.
Claims 1, 5-8 and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of Rose.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Fuller in view of Ray.
The examiner's rejections are explained on pages 3-6 of
the answer. The arguments of the appellants in support of2
their position are found on pages 8-19 of the brief and pages
1-4 of the reply brief.
OPINION
At the outset, we note the appellants on page 7 of the
brief state that:
1. method claims 1-7 stand or fall together as a
first group;
2. device claims 8-14 stand or fall together as a
2 The answer contains no "Response to Argument" as expressly required by Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1208 (6th ed., Rev. 3, Jul. 1997).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007