Appeal No. 97-0943 Page 3
Application No. 08/232,502
Hamacher 5,102,408 Apr. 7,
1992
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 7, 9, 10 and 33 through 35 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as the invention.3
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 7, 9, 10 and 33 through 35 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Rubalcaba in view of Hamacher.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 103 and §
112, second paragraph, rejections, we make reference to the
final rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed December 11, 1995) and
the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13, mailed October 25, 1996)
3The examiner withdrew the specific objections to claims
2, 7 and 32 (sic, 33?) in the Advisory Action of April 1,
1996.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007