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