Ex parte TEXTER et al. - Page 3




            Appeal No. 1996-3955                                                                              
            Application 08/170,601                                                                            


            U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings                                    
            of Texter, JP ‘751, Cole, Hara, Schenk and Peters.                                                
                                                  OPINION                                                     
                   We have carefully considered all of the arguments                                          
            advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with                                            
            appellants that the                                                                               


            aforementioned rejections are not well founded.  Accordingly,                                     
            we reverse these rejections.  Under the provisions of 37 CFR                                      
             1.196(b) we enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1,                                        
            4/1, 5/1, 6/5/1, 7/1, 8/7/1, 9/1-14/1, 16/1 and 17/1.                                             
                                        New ground of rejection                                               
                   Claims 1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/5/1, 7/1, 8/7/1, 9/1-14/1, 16/1 and                                  
            17/1 are 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 appellants regard as                                    
            the invention.                                                                                    
                   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                                     


                                                     -3-3                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007