Appeal No. 2001-2566 Page 4
Application No. 09/655,092
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Getsay in view of Richter.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection and
answer (Paper Nos. 8 and 13) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections and to the brief and
reply brief (Paper Nos. 10 and 14) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
The examiner contends that the claims are indefinite
because “[i]t is unclear if the applicant’s invention is the
In that claim 9 depends from claim 1, it appears that the examiner’s1
intended rejection of claim 9 is based upon Getsay in view of Miller and
Richter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007