Appeal No. 98-1036
Application 08/540,193
f) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schafer; and 2
g) claims 4 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mapes in view of Habrant; and
h) claims 11 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schafer in view of Habrant.
Reference is made to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 8) and
to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9) for the respective
positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims
4 through 7 and 11 through 14 rests on the examiner's
determination that the appellant's specification is non-
enabling with respect to the limitations in these claims
2In the final rejection (Paper No. 4), the examiner
applied Mapes or Schafer as alternatives to support the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 3 and 9. The
examiner has since withdrawn Schafer from the rejection of
claims 2 and 3 and Mapes from the rejection of claim 9 (see
pages 6 and 7 in the answer, Paper No. 9).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007