Appeal No. 1994-4016
Application No. 07/793,824
(4) Claims 8, 10, 11, 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Hosoi, Bottcher, Butler and Wirth ‘292;
(5) Claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Ford;
(6) Claims 5 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Ford in view of Hosoi and Wirth ‘292;
(7) Claims 13 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over either Ford or Draper, in view of Wirth
‘292, Hosoi and Wirth ‘735; and
(8) Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
either Ford or Draper, in view of Wirth ‘292, Hosoi, Wirth and
De Muynck.
OPINION
We reverse each of the foregoing rejections. Our reasons
for this determination follow.
INDEFINITENESS
We will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the
reasons expressed at pages 11 and 12 of the Brief.
PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
The initial inquiry into determining the propriety of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007