Appeal No. 98-2769
Application 08/485,960
non-enabling disclosure.
Claim 1 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which appellants regard as their
invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 8, 10 through 18 and 20 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Sibalis ‘479.
Claims 1 through 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Phipps ‘894.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sibalis ‘479
in view of Chien.
Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sibalis ‘479
in view of Phipps ‘894.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007