Appeal No. 1996-3547 Page 4
Application No. 08/089,854
Spector et al. (Spector) 4,164,794 Aug. 21, 1979
Claims 71-106 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 applicants
regard as their invention. Claims 13-19 and 68-106 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Jones or, in
the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jones. Claim 107 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jones in view of Spector.
OPINION
We refer to the appellants' brief and to the answer for the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and the examiner
concerning the above noted rejections. For the reasons which
follow, we cannot sustain the examiner's stated § 112, second
paragraph, rejection. However, we shall sustain the examiner's
§§ 102 and 103 rejections as expressed in the answer for reasons
as further explained below.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007