Appeal No. 96-3741
Application No. 08/177,288
Lastly, claims 7 and 9 stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over German ‘402 in view of
Research Disclosure.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the
appellants and by the examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will sustain only the
section 102 rejection of claim 6 and the section 103
rejections of claims 3, 12, 14 and 15.
Concerning the section 112, second paragraph, rejection,
the examiner argues “[c]laims 3, 6-7, 9 and 12-20 are vague
and indefinite since applicant recites the relationship of the
elements of the coating applicator or coating apparatus yet
applicant has failed to claim the enclosure in combination
with the coating applicator and backup support” (answer, pages
7-8). From our perspective, the appealed claims circumscribe
a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity vis à vis whether the area of a given claim is
directed to an enclosure or an enclosure in combination with
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007