Appeal No. 1997-3332
Application No. 08/436,182
The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner
is:
Mazzola 5,443,751 Aug. 22,
1995
(effective filing date: March 5, 1993)
The following rejections are before us for consideration:
I. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 USC § 112, second
paragraph, for indefiniteness.
II. Claim 1-11 stand rejected under 35 USC § 102(e) as
being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 USC §
103 for obviousness in view of Mazzola.
We have carefully considered the entire record in light
of the respective positions taken by the examiner and by
appellants.
Having done so, we shall affirm each of the rejections at
issue essentially for the reasons presented in the examiner's
Answer and Supplemental Answer. We add the following remarks
for emphasis:
First, with regard to the 35 USC § 112 rejection, the
examiner has found that the recitation of a tradename (Neodol
23-3) in claim 11 renders the claim indefinite. Appellants do
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007