Appeal No. 1998-1623
Application 08/433,625
Claims 21, 22, 31, 32 and 34-37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 20-24, 26, 28, 31 and 32 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Brady.
Claims 25, 27, 29, 30 and 33-37 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Brady.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the briefs and answer for the2
details thereof.
OPINION
After careful review of the evidence before us, we agree
with the Examiner that claims 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28 are
properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Thus, we will
sustain the rejection of these claims, but we will reverse the
rejection of the remaining claims on appeal for the reasons
2The Appellants filed an appeal brief on May 30, 1997.
Appellants filed a reply brief on October 2, 1997. The
Examiner mailed a communication on December 8, 1997 stating
that the reply brief has been entered and considered but no
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007