Appeal No. 1996-3591
Application No. 08/251,053
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Masaki 4,986,385 Jan. 22,
1991
Iyengar 5,063,304 Nov. 05,
1991
Claims 1-15 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Iyengar in view of Masaki. 2
Claims 8-14 further stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention. We note that,
in an advisory office action dated August 18, 1995, the
Examiner had indicated that Appellants’ amendment after final
rejection filed July 31, 1995 had overcome the 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-7 and 15 made in
the final rejection. In the Examiner’s Answer dated February
23, 1996, however, the Examiner reasserted the 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-7 made in the
final rejection. Appellants filed a further amendment after
final rejection on April 29, 1996 which the Examiner entered
and indicated, in a supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated May
2A correct copy of appealed claims 1 and 8 appears in the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated May 12, 1999.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007