Appeal No. 1998-2240 Page 2 Application No. 08/443,058 The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are: Wigal 3,055,123 Sep. 25. 1962 Dukes 3,063,163 Nov. 13, 1962 Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.1 Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, and 10-18 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wigal in view of Dukes. Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 15) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst. OPINION 1Claims 10-18 were omitted from the statement of this rejection in the Answer. However, since claim 13 was mentioned in the explanation of the rejection, this omission appears to have been inadvertent.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007