Appeal No. 1997-2781 Page 3
Application No. 08/422,348
1. Claims 1 through 4, 7 and 9 through 18 as unpatentable
over McDonald in view of Stevens;
2. Claims 5 and 6 as unpatentable over McDonald in view of
Stevens and Beers; and
3. Claim 8 as unpatentable over McDonald in view of
Stevens and Crescentini.
Claims 13 and 17 additionally stand rejected 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 their invention.
In their briefs, appellants did not argue the § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 13 and 17 and, instead,
on page 2 of the main brief requested cancellation of these
claims to remove the § 112, second paragraph issue from this
appeal. In his answer, the examiner refused to cancel claims
13 and 17 presumably because the request for cancellation was
not submitted as an amendment in a separate paper pursuant to §
1207 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (7 ed., Julyth
1998). Accordingly, the appeal of claims 13 and 17 is still
before us. However, since the § 103 and § 112, second
paragraph, rejections of these claims have not been argued and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007