Appeal No. 1999-0700 Page 3
Application No. 08/590,580
2. Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Kok.
3. Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kok.
4. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kok, as
applied to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 23 above, and further in view of Clements.
5. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kok, as
applied to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 23 above, and further in view of Fleischer.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 20) and the final rejection and answer (Paper
Nos. 5 and 21) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with regard to the
merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
In rejecting claims 19-23 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner
states
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007