Appeal No. 97-3199
Application No. 08/273,767
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Knief.
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Knief.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Gilles.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the argument presented by appellants appears in the main
and supplemental answers (Paper Nos. 15 and 17), while the
complete statement of appellants’ argument can be found in the
main and reply briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 16).
In the main brief (page 8), appellants indicate, relative
to the art rejections, that claims 4, 6, and 8 stand or fall
with independent claim 1, and that claims 2 and 3 are argued
separately and do not stand or fall with claim 1. As to the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, appellants
state that claim 3 stands or falls with claim 2.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007