Appeal No. 98-0457
Application 08/604,813
The claims stand rejected as follows:
(a) claims 1-8 and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite;
(b) claims 1 and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Salfisberg.
(c) claims 2, 3, 9, 10 and 17, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as
being unpatentable over AAPA in view of Salfisberg and further
in view of Schwinn; and
(d) claims 4-8 and 11-15, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as being
unpatentable over AAPA in view of Salfisberg and Schwinn, and
further in view of Pokras.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 7). The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set
forth in the brief (Paper No. 6).
The § 112, second paragraph, rejection
(rejection (a))
The examiner contends that claims 1-8 and 16 are
indefinite because “[i]n claim 1, the phrase 'a moisture
specification would be appropriate in the event of further
prosecution.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007