Appeal No. 1997-1208
Application 08/077,219
1. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
being based on an inadequate disclosure.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention.
3. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
East.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the 3
respective details thereof.
OPINION
3 The original Appeal Brief was filed May 20, 1996 to
which the Examiner responded with an Examiner’s Answer dated
July 15, 1996 and a Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated
October 2, 1996. A corrected original Appeal Brief was filed
September 13, 1999. In response to the correction and
remailing of the original Examiner’s Answer on September 17,
1999, a Reply Brief was filed November 22, 1999, which was
acknowledged and entered by the Examiner without further
comment on December 3, 1999.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007