Appeal No. 1996-0951 Page 4
Application No. 07/880,793
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 as indefinite. The claims also stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Kodosky. Rather than
repeat the arguments of the appellant or examiner in toto, we
refer the reader to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections and evidence
advanced by the examiner. We also considered the arguments of
the appellant and examiner. After considering the record
before us, we cannot say that claims 1, 2, 4, and 20-22 do not
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
regarded as the invention. We also cannot say that the
evidence anticipates the invention of the claims.
Accordingly, we reverse. Our opinion discusses the
definiteness and novelty of the claims seriatim.
Definiteness of Claims 1, 2, 4, and 20-22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007