Appeal No. 2000-2294
Application No. 08/511,425
1996
(filed Dec. 07, 1993)
All of the appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as being based on an inadequate
disclosure under the enabling clause of the statute. Claims
69-78 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as being based on an inadequate disclosure under the written
description provision of the statute. All of the appealed
claims also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failure to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention. Lastly, all of the appealed
claims further stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Kwon or Swapp, in the alternative, in view
of King '405, King '241, or Moriya, and further in view of
Kreiger, Charlton, or Tuckerman.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief (Paper No. 21) and
Answer (Paper No. 22) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the Examiner, the arguments
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007