Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 14-18 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 the appellants regard as the invention.4
Claims 5, 6, 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, fourth paragraph, as being in improper dependent form for
failing to further limit the subject matter of the previous
claim.5
Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Kao.
Claims 14-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Eckert or Endres.
4 This is a new rejection, made for the first time in the
Examiner’s Answer.
5This is a new rejection, made for the first time in the
Examiner’s Answer.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007