Appeal No. 1998-2849 Page 3
Application No. 08/584,158
filed, does not provide support for the invention as is now
claimed.
Claims 35 through 74 stand 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 the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 35 through 37, 39 and 41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Wright.
Claims 38, 40 and 42 through 61 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wright.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection in the
parent application (Paper No. 8, mailed February 6, 1995), the
final rejection in this application (Paper No. 16, mailed July
2, 1996) and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 22, mailed March
9, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007