Appeal No. 1997-0587
Application 08/314,644
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention. Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19 and 20 also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the
examiner offers Adair in view of Demers with respect to claims
1-6 and 10-15, and Thompson is added with respect to claims 7,
8, 16, 17, 19 and 20.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for
the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the
evidence of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support
for the obviousness rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed
and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us, that the appealed claims are in compliance with the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We are also of the view
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007