Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
Claims 17 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Eckert or Endres, each taken further
in view of Enloe.
Claims 1-13 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Enloe in view of Lindquist, Lawson
and Kao.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The appellants’ arguments in rebuttal to the positions
taken by the examiner are set forth in the Briefs.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellants as set forth in the Answer and the
Briefs. Our conclusions follow.
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The first of these rejections is that claims 2, 3-6, 8,
9, 11 and 12 fail to comply with the second paragraph of
Section 112. The examiner has decided that claim 2 is
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007