Appeal No. 96-0088
Application No. 08/038,426
Claims 1, 4, 5, 16, 18, 23 and 27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Bowers ‘050.2
Claims 1, 4 through 12, 14, 16 and 23 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being clearly anticipated by
Robinson ‘483.
Claims 1 and 4 through 14, 16, 18 through 21, 23 through
25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bowers ‘050, in view of Henk, Robinson ‘483,
Robinson ‘017, Reinhard and Baird.
OPINION
A. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Any analysis of the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 should start with the second paragraph, then proceed
with the first paragraph. In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 501,
2Although the statement of rejection in the Answer lists
claim 17 rather than claim 27, the examiner presumably means
to include claim 27 not 17 in this rejection. Claim 17 was
indicated as containing subject matter allowable over the art
of record and stands rejected only under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. Claim 27 was included in the final
rejection, dated August 17, 1994, Paper No. 9. Appellants
likewise include claim 27 in the argument presented in the
Brief with respect to the rejection over Bowers ‘050. It
appears that the examiner’s omission was typographical.
Accordingly, we consider claim 27 to be included in the
rejection.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007