Appeal No. 1998-3033
Application No. 08/794,982
35 U.S.C. § 112 as being indefinite.
Claims 23 through 30, 32, 33 and 36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Noll.
Claims 38 and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Noll or, in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noll.
Claims 31, 34, 35 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noll in view of Best.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
The indefiniteness rejection is sustained, and the prior
art rejections are reversed.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection
of claim 24, appellants argue (Reply Brief, page 2) that entry
of the amendment after final would have placed this claim “in
better condition for appeal and for allowance.” Other than
this argument, appellants have failed to point out the error
in the indefiniteness rejection. Accordingly, we will sustain
the indefiniteness rejection of claim 24 pro forma.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007