Appeal No. 1997-0258
Application No. 08/251,052
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
in support of the rejections and the evidence of anticipation
and obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Briefs along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth
in the Examiner’s Answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that claim 12 particularly points out the invention in a
manner which complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We are also of the view that the disclosure of Hsieh does not
fully meet the invention as recited in claims 1 and 7. In
addition, it is our conclusion that the evidence relied upon
and the level of skill in the particular art would not have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the obviousness
of the invention set forth in claims 2-4 and 8-10.
Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claim 12 as being
indefinite under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007