Appeal No. 1997-0595 Page 3
Application No. 08/154,911
Claims 13 to 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,2
first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not
described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to
enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
invention, and/or for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as the invention.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Johnson.
Claims 1 to 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of D'Angelo.
2While claim 17 was not specifically included in this
rejection, we conclude that the examiner intended claim 17 to
be included since claim 17 is dependent on claim 16.
Additionally, the appellant has grouped claims 14-17 to stand
or fall with claim 13 with respect to this rejection (brief,
p. 9).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007