Appeal No. 2000-0504
Application 08/799,898
second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicant regards as the invention. The examiner has 1
stated that there is an inconsistency between the preamble and
the body of the claim. According to the examiner, this
inconsistency renders it impossible to determine whether the
claim is directed to a subcombination or a combination.
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as anticipated by Jones.
Claims 1 through 5 and 11 through 15 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Riccio.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Jones.
Claims 6 through 9, 16, 17 and 21 through 23 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(b) as unpatentable over Riccio
in view of Mahannah.
1 In paragraph 10 of the Examiner’s Answer, we note that
claims 1 through 3 are rejected under “35 U.S.C. § 102(b).”
We have treated this reference to § 102(b) as a typographical
error, for we note that the arguments section of the
Examiner’s Answer is responsive to the brief, wherein the §
112 second paragraph rejection is argued.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007