Appeal No. 2001-0386 Page 9
Application No. 08/614,358
support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of
course, impermissible. See, for example, W. L. Gore and
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 USPQ
303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 3, 4, 6 to 9, 11, 12, 14 to 20, 23,
24 and 26 to 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Claims 8, 23 to 32 and 34 are 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 are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007