Appeal No. 1999-0220 Page 4
Application No. 08/540,323
way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the
invention.
Claims 1 to 4, 6 to 12, 21 and 27 to 30 stand rejected
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 appellant regards as the invention.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 21,
mailed February 3, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 20,
filed November 7, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 22, filed
April 3, 1998) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, and to the respective positions articulated by the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007