Appeal No. 97-1754
Application 08/462,133
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention” (answer, page 3).
Claims 2 and 3 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Chiappe in view of Murphy and
Mojden.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 40).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in
the main brief (Paper No. 39) and the reply brief (Paper No.
42).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
Considering first the standing § 103 rejection, for
reasons stated infra in our treatment of the examiner’s
rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, we have encountered considerable difficulty
understanding the meaning of certain terminology appearing in
appealed claim 2. Normally a claim which fails to comply with
the second paragraph of § 112 will not be analyzed as to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007