Ex parte GRUBER et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1998-3207                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 08/518,874                                                  


          rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19,                  
          mailed April 23, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning                
          in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15,               
          filed November 24, 1997), supplemental brief (Paper No. 18,                 
          filed March 13, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 20, filed May              
          4, 1998) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.                        


                                       OPINION                                        
               In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given                 
          careful consideration to the appellants' specification and                  
          claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the                     
          respective positions articulated by the appellants and the                  
          examiner.  As a consequence of our review, we make the                      
          determinations which follow.                                                


          The indefiniteness rejection                                                
               We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-13 and                
          18-21 under 35 U.S.C.  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.                                                    







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007