Ex parte HUTCHINS et al. - Page 3




            Appeal No. 96-1808                                                                           
            Application 08/204,119                                                                       


            means mounted for movement relative to said vessel and said                                  
            shaft therein, said movement having a component parallel                                     
            thereto.                                                                                     





                                           THE REFERENCES                                                
            Smolen                              4,279,860     Jul. 21,                                   
            1981                                                                                         
            Cosgrove, Jr. et al. (Cosgrove)     4,578,244     Mar. 25,                                   
            1986                                                                                         
            Schneider (Schneider ‘657)          4,754,657     Jul.  5,                                   
            1988                                                                                         
            Schneider (Schneider ‘716)          4,924,716     May  15,                                   
            1990                                                                                         
                                           THE REJECTIONS                                                
                  Claims 1-8, 10-37 and 45-50 stand rejected under 35                                    
            U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider ‘716 in view                               
            of Cosgrove, Schneider ‘657 and Smolen.  Claims 25 and 26 also                               
            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 appellants regard as                               
            their invention.                                                                             
                                                OPINION                                                  
                  We have carefully considered all of the arguments                                      

                                                  -3-3                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007