Appeal No. 1999-0272 Page 3
Application No. 08/605,212
Claims 8, 10, 12 and 14 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 appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 7, 8, 16, 17, 18, 22, 24 and 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ward or
Gurevich.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 26,
mailed July 7, 1998) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 25,
filed May 29, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 27, filed
September 11, 1998) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007