Appeal No. 95-4147
Application 08/151,454
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Rohowetz et al. (Rohowetz) 4,179,397 Dec. 18, 1979
Smith et al. (Smith) 4,318,953 Mar. 9, 1982
Pointon 4,391,853 Jul. 5, 1983
Desjarlais 4,775,594 Oct. 4, 1988
Barton 4,842,950 Jun. 27, 1989
Hindagolla et al. (Hindagolla) 5,108,503 Apr. 28, 1992
Maruyama et al. (Maruyama) 5,132,146 Jul. 21, 1992
Claims 1, 15 and 20 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 applicant regards as the invention (Answer, page 3).
Claims 1-6, 10, 12, 14, 20-25 and 29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Pointon in view of Maruyama
and Hindagolla (Answer, page 4). Claims 15-19 stand rejected 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the references
2The final rejection of claims 1-6, 10, 12, 14, 20-25 and
29 included “af Strom”, U.S. Patent No. 5,032,449, as a
primary reference (see page 2 of the final rejection). The
examiner has included “af Strom” as “prior art of record
relied upon in the rejection of claims under appeal” (Answer,
page 3) but does not include “af Strom” in the statement of
the rejection or in any discussion (see the Answer, page 4).
Accordingly, we consider any rejection involving “af Strom” as
having been withdrawn. See the Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure, § 1208, p. 1200-14 and -15, 7th ed., July 1998, and
Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007