Appeal No. 1997-1667
Application No. 08/226,819
Claims 6 through 12, 25, 27 through 33 and 36 through 38
stand rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 through 10, 16 through 20 and 25 through 38
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Baiker; claim 12 stands correspondingly rejected as being
unpatentable over Baiker in view of Ghosh; and claims 22
through 24 stand correspondingly rejected as being
unpatentable over Baiker in view of Dougherty.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain the
examiner’s section 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim
28 but will not sustain any of the other section 112 or
section 103 rejections before us on this appeal.
The section 112, second paragraph, rejection
As correctly indicated by the appellant in the brief, the
examiner’s indefiniteness position is not well founded with
respect to the claim 11 term “thin” (in addition to the
appellant’s comments, see page 9 of the subject specification
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007