Appeal No. 1996-1002
Application 07/988,945
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 18-22 and 25-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as being non-enabled by the specification. As evidence, the examiner relies on
Waldmann, Hird, and Harris.
Claims 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies on Takeshita and Kupiec-Weglinski.
Claims 26-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of
obviousness, the examiner relies on Takeshita, Kupiec-Weglinski, Morrison and Queen.
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner relies on Takeshita, Kupiec-Weglinski, and Williams.
We reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and remand the application to the examiner for further
consideration of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007