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