Appeal No. 1997-3449 Page 6
Application No. 08/424,806
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we considered
the subject matter on appeal and the rejections advanced by
the examiner. Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments
and evidence of the appellant and examiner. After considering
the totality of the record, we are not persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 5 and 12 as indefinite. We
are persuaded, however, that he erred in rejecting claims 1,
3, 5-7, 9, 10, and 12-14 as obvious. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part. Our opinion addresses the indefiniteness and
obviousness of claims 5 and 12 and the obviousness of the
claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 14.
Indefiniteness and Obviousness of Claims 5 and 12
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires that a
specification conclude "with one or more claims particularly
pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which
the applicant regards as his invention." We address the
rejections of claims 5 and 12 seriatim.
The examiner rejects claim 5 as being “dependent on claim
4 which has been canceled.” (Examiner’s Answer, ¶ 11.) The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007