Appeal No. 1999-0519
Application 08/728,224
Claims 4 and 10 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 appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Hamada.
Claim 2, 3, 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hamada.
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. 13, mailed August 26, 1998) for the reason-
ing in support of the rejections, and to appellant’s brief
(Paper No. 11, filed June 10, 1998) for the arguments there-
against.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007