Appeal No. 2000-0076
Application 08/970,231
Hence, the combined teachings of the applied references
would not have suggested the subject matter recited in claims
1, 27 and 39 to one of ordinary skill in the art. In other
words, these references, even if assumed to be analogous art
(the appellants argue that they are not), fail to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to such subject
matter. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 352
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 27 and 39 or of
dependent claims 2 through 26, 28 through 38 and 40 through
44.
III. New ground of rejection
The following new rejection is entered pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Claims 1, 27 and 39, and dependent claims 2 through 26,
28 through 38 and 40 through 44, are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point and
distinctly claim the subject matter the appellants regard as
the invention.3
2 This being so, there is no need to delve into the merits of the appellants’
declaration evidence of non-obviousness.
3 This rejection is separate and distinct from the examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007