Appeal No. 1997-0958
Application 08/300,669
THE REFERENCES
Chandler 3,296,063 Jan. 3,
1967 Koerner et al. (Koerner) 4,105,567 Aug.
8, 1978
Hanzel et al. (Hanzel) 4,296,174 Oct. 20,
1981
Ejima et al. (Ejima) 4,840,846 Jun. 20,
1989
Schmalz 5,045,387 Sep. 3,
1991
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 5,288,516 Feb. 22,
1994
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 10-18 stand rejected under Hanzel, Ejima, Anderson
or Chandler, in view of Schmalz and Koerner, and 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.
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.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007