Ex parte RASMUSSEN - Page 2




                   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  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007