Appeal No. 2000-2288
Application No. 08/960,576
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim that which appellants regard as
their invention.
In addition to the foregoing rejection, the appealed
claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
a) claims 1 through 5 and 7 through 24 as being obvious
over Burton in view of Plaisted ‘958; and
b) claim 6 as being obvious over Burton in view of
Plaisted ‘958 and Werthmann.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 14, mailed March 9, 2000) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No.
10, filed September 10, 1999), request to reinstate appeal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007