Appeal No. 1998-3207 Page 4
Application No. 08/518,874
§ 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.1
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bird, Timson, Pasch or Wieser.
Claims 1, 3-9, 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ference taken together with
either Bogardy or Norton, and further in view of either Pasch
or Wieser.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ference taken together with either Bogardy
or Norton, and further in view of either Pasch or Wieser as
applied above, and further in view of Dreher.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
1The examiner inadvertently included canceled claim 2 in
the statement of this rejection set forth in the answer.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007