Appeal No. 96-2833
Application 08/202,772
1989
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1-12 stand rejected as follows: 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; under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, “as failing to provide the full,
clear, concise and exact terms of the description of the
invention”; and under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
the combined teachings of Graiver and Fox.2
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with
appellants that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we do not sustain these rejections.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
2 The examiner’s reliance upon U.S. 4,155,870 to
Jorgensen, U.S. 4,663,358 to Hyon et al., U.S. 4,976,953 to
Orr et al., and U.S. 5,234,618 to Kamegai et al., is withdrawn
in the examiner’s answer (page 8).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007