Appeal No. 98-3404
Application 08/600,813
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the above-noted rejections and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 8, mailed November 26, 1997) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 7, filed August 28, 1997) for the
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, this panel of the Board has given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we find that we must
reverse the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5 through 7, 9 and 11 through 13 on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because we are unable to clearly understand the claimed subject matter due
to language which we find renders the claims indefinite. As for the examiner’s rejection of claims 11
and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based on portions of these claims which we are able to
understand, we will reverse this rejection also. Our reasoning for the above determinations follows.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007