Appeal No. 1998-3264
Application No. 08/345,371
The reference set forth below is the sole reference
applied by the examiner in the rejections before us:
Georges et al. (Georges) 5,322,912 Jun. 21,
1994
As expressed on page 4 of the answer, “[c]laims 1, 2, 6,
8, 10, 11, 14, 16-18, 20, 22, 23 [are] rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention
is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms
as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
same, and/or for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as
the invention.”
As expressed on page 3 of the answer, “[c]laims 1-6
[sic], 8, 10-12 [sic], 14-18 [sic], 20, 22 [are] rejected
under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by or, in the alternative,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Georges.”1
1Plainly, the examiner has inaptly listed the claims
included in his above noted prior art rejection. For purposes
of completeness in our disposition of this appeal, we will
assume that the prior art rejection has been applied against
all of the claims on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007