Appeal No. 1999-1821 Page 4
Application No. 08/725,335
§ 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 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 23, 27, 32-36 and 39-43 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Johnston.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 24-26 and 37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
brief for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007