Appeal No. 1999-1965
Application 08/529,230
The claims stand rejected as follows:
a) claims 5, 6, 17, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter the appellants regard as
the invention;2
b) claims 1, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Boreali in view of Yokota;
c) claims 2 through 4 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boreali in view of Yokota and Hill;
d) claims 5, 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Boreali in view of Yokota, Hill and
Szczepaniec;
e) claims 6, 14, 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Boreali in view of Yokota, Hill,
Szczepaniec and Hirono;
f) claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
2In the final rejection (Paper No. 12), claims 1 through
4 and 7 through 15 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. The examiner has since withdrawn the
rejection as to these claims in light of amendments made
subsequent to final rejection (see page 12 in the answer,
Paper No. 24).
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007