Appeal No. 1998-2700
Application No. 08/722,452
Garuglieri DE4106636 Jun. 4,
1992 (German)(translation attached)
Claims 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 27 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Briskin in
view of Garuglieri and Cox.3
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full
commentary with regard to 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. 23, mailed April 28, 1998) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper
3A review of PTO records reveals that the provisional
double patenting rejection of claims 15, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24,
26 and 27 set forth on page 3 of the final rejection (Paper
No. 16) is now moot in view of the abandonment of Application
Serial No. 08/722,453 on which that rejection was based.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007