Appeal No. 96-3946
Application No. 08/208,317
fall together. Appellant groups the claims as follows: (1)
claims 1 through 12, (2) claims 13 through 24 and 31, (3)
claims 25, 26, 29, and 30, and (4) claims 27, 28 and 32 .2
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will affirm the 112 second paragraph rejection of
claims 7, 8,
10, 11, 19, 20, 22, and 23, but reverse the 112 second
paragraph rejection of the remaining claims, affirm the 112
first paragraph rejection of claims 27, 28, 31, and 32, affirm
the obviousness rejection of claims 1 to 12, 25, and 26, and
reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 13 through 24,
and 27 through 32.
The examiner first objects to the use of "optional" in
independent claims 1 and 13. She states (Answer, page 4) that
"'optional' is not definite since the limitation does not
clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent
We note that claim 32 is identical to claim 28.2
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007