Appeal No. 98-0516
Application No. 08/400,328
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellants regard as the invention.3
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Edelhoff.
Claims 2, 5-7, 11, 15, 18-20 and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Edelhoff in view of
Tonsor.
Claims 3, 4, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Edelhoff in view of Tonsor and
Nielson.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Edelhoff in view of Tonsor and Edelhoff
‘767.
Claims 13 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Edelhoff in view of Tonsor and Bayne.
3A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was entered against
claim 10 in the first office action (Paper No. 14), but it
does not appear in the final rejection (Paper No. 17) or in
the Answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007