Appeal No. 97-2227
Application 08/254,978
suggest such an arrangement.
As to claims 3-8, the examiner has additionally relied on
the teachings of Dudden. We have, however, carefully reviewed
the teachings of this reference, but find nothing therein
which would overcome the deficiencies of Atfield that we have
noted above.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejec-
tions of claims 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we make the
following new rejection.
Claims 9-13 are 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. The purpose of the second
paragraph of § 112 is to provide those who would endeavor, in
future enterprises, to approach the area circumscribed by the
claims of a patent, with adequate notice demanded by due
process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately
determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate
the possibility of infringement and dominance. In re Hammack,
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007