Appeal No. 1997-0151
Application 08/169,542
appellant regards as the invention.
OPINION
The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is based upon the claim being indefinite due to its
dependence from a canceled claim, i.e., claim 35 (answer,
page 4). We summarily affirm this rejection because it is not
contested by appellant.
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we have
carefully considered all of the arguments advanced by
appellant and the examiner and agree with appellant that these
rejections are not well founded. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We need to address only
appellant’s sole independent claim, which is claim 40.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
appellant’s admitted prior art taken with Segall
The examiner argues that appellant acknowledges on pages
1 and 2 of the specification that it was known in the art to
use inert gases to control pressure in the process of heating
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007