Appeal No. 1998-2356
Application 08/373,860
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Goddard in view of
Stockton as applied to claims 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Martin.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant regarding the rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 18, mailed December 23, 1997) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections and to appellant's brief (Paper No. 17, filed September 29, 1997) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, this panel of the Board has given careful consideration to
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we find that we must
reverse the examiner's rejections of claims 1 through 19 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because we
are unable to clearly understand the claimed subject matter due to language which renders the claims
indefinite. Our reasons for this determination follow.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007