Appeal No. 99-0629 Page 3
Application No. 08/778,059
Wilson 5,158,208 Oct. 27,
1992 An additional reference made of record by this panel
of the Board is:4
Steiner 2,888,004 May 26,
1959 The following rejections are before us for review.5
1. Claims 17 through 27 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.
2. Claims 25 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Breneman in view of Tsao.
3. Claims 17 through 22, 24 and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Breneman in view of
Wilson.
The complete text of the examiner's rejections and
response to the argument presented by the appellant appears in
4 A copy of this patent is appended hereto.
5 The rejections of claims 17 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, and of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 251 are assumed to be withdrawn
in view of the examiner's failure to carry these rejections forward and
restate them in the answer. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
The appellant appears to concede that claim 27 should be withdrawn (brief,
page 3). Nevertheless, we shall decide the appeal of the 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and
112, second paragraph, rejections of claim 27, since the appellant has not
expressly withdrawn the appeal as to this claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007