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