Ex parte BRIGHT - Page 4




          Appeal No. 1998-0483                                                        
          Application No. 08/543,840                                                  




                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                                                                     
                                    THE PRIOR ART                                     
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Herdzina et al. (Herdzina)    4,216,044                Aug. 5,              
          1980                                                                        
          Dickey                        4,923,557                May 8,               
          1990                                                                        

                                   THE REJECTIONS                                     
               Claims 1 through 6 and 12 through 18 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 applicant regards as the invention.                    
               Claims 1 through 13 and 15 through 18 stand rejected                   
          under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Dickey in                  
          view of Herdzina.                                                           
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced              
          by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted                 

                                          4                                           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007