Appeal No. 97-2725
Application 08/138,456
The following references are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness in support of his
rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103:
Matvey 3,758,999 Sep. 18, 1973
usuki et al. (Susuki) 3,908,055 Sep. 23, 1975
Ptashinski 4,915,055 Apr. 10, 1990
Turner 5,056,454 Oct. 15, 1991
Burns 5,420,797 May 30, 1995
Claims 1 through 4 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Susuki in view of Turner and
Burns, claims 5 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Susuki in view of Turner, Burns and
Matvey, and claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Susuki in view of Turner, Burns and
Ptashinski. Claims 1 through 9 and 22 additionally 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 appellant regards as
his invention. Reference is made to the examiner’s answer for
details of these rejections.
In traversing the final rejection of claim 1 under the
second paragraph of § 112, appellant unequivocally urges on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007