Appeal No. 96-3717
Application 08/229,115
References of Record
The following references of record are relied upon by the examiner in support of the rejection of
the claims:
Solomon et al. (Solomon) 4,999,210 Mar. 12, 1991
Lambert et al. (Lambert) 5,102,401 Apr. 7, 1992
(filed Aug. 22, 1990)
The Rejections
Claims 12-29 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.
Claims 12, 13, 16-22 and 25-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Solomon or Lambert.3
Opinion
We have carefully considered the respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner.
For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm the rejection of claims 12, 13, 16-22 and 25-30 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Solomon and the rejection of the same claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103
3We note that the sole ground of rejection over prior art in the final Office action was the rejection of claims 12,
13, 16-22 and 25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Solomon or Lambert. We further note that in the
first Office action on the merits, that the examiner rejected the claims as now stated in the answer. See paper no. 18, p.
3. We do not know whether the examiner’s failure to carry over the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to the final Office
action was an inadvertent omission or intentional. Be it as it may, appellants did respond to the obviousness rejection;
so we have the benefit of appellants’ arguments traversing the rejection.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007