Ex parte GRUBER et al. - Page 4




                 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