Appeal No. 1997-1505 Page 4
Application No. 08/580,778
Claims 1-4, 7, 10, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 353
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wahler in view of Grandfield.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wahler in view of Grandfield and Itri.
Claims 1-4 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wahler in view of Grandfield, Itri and
Blöckl.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 31, mailed October 17, 1996) for the examiner’s
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 29, filed August 16, 1996) for
the appellant’s arguments thereagainst. Only those arguments
actually made by the appellants have been considered in this
3 The examiner (answer, page 2) states that the rejection of claims 9
and 11, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn as
indicated in the paper mailed on October 11, 1996. As to claim 11, the
examiner’s position is unclear. The August 16, 1996 (Paper No. 27) amendments
to claim 11 do not overcome the reasons relied upon by the examiner for the
examiner’s conclusion of indefiniteness of claim 10, from which claim 11
depends.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007