Appeal No. 2001-1343
Application No. 08/965,818
Claims 95 through 98 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter the appellant regards
as the invention.
Claims 77 through 112 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, as being based on a specification which
fails to comply with the written description requirement of
this section of the statute.
Claims 77, 83, 85, 86, 95, 99, 100, 104, 105 and 109
through 111 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bernard in view of Thompson.
Claims 81, 82, 90, 91, 107 and 108 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard in view of
Thompson and Coyle.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
53) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 54) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner with
regard to the merits of these rejections.1
1In the final rejection (Paper No. 49), claims 77 through
112 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007