Appeal No. 1998-2083
Application No. 08/471,584
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 17, 75, 76, 78 and 79 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Holtkamp in view of
Worthington.
Claims 77 and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Holtkamp in view of Worthington, as
applied above to claims 75 and 79, and further in view of
Smith.
The full text of the examiner's rejections and response
to the arguments presented by the appellants appears in the
final rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed April 9, 1997), the
advisory action mailed August 26, 1997 (Paper No. 15) and the
answer (Paper No. 19, mailed March 3, 1998), while the
complete statement of the appellants’ arguments can be found
in the brief (Paper No. 18, filed December 8, 1997).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007