Appeal No. 1996-2966
Application No. 08/257,232
The examiner relies on the following references:
Winsor 4,933,687 June 12, 1990
Gelbart 5,049,901 Sep. 17, 1991
Smith et al. (Smith) 5,121,146 June 09, 1992
(filed Dec. 27,
1989).
Claims 1-20 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Gelbart in
view of Smith. In response to the appeal brief, a new
rejection of claims 1-10 was made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Gelbart in view of
Smith and Winsor. The rejection of claims 11-20 was
maintained as set forth in the final rejection.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answers for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that claims 1-20 fail to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention in a manner which complies with
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We enter a new
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007