Appeal No. 1997-0525 Page 3
Application No. 08/355,931
10, which are reproduced in an appendix attached to
appellants' second reply brief.
A listing of the prior art references of record relied
upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims appears
in the supplemental answer (Paper No. 20).
Claims 7 and 8 stand 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claims 7 and 9
stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bregman or Bray.
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bregman or Bray as applied against claims 7
and 9, each further in view of Japan 62-091287 or Japan
62-180793.
We refer to the briefs and to the answers for the
opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants and by the
examiner concerning the above-noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will not sustain any of
the examiner's rejections.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007