Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
Claims 2 through 10, 14 through 18 and 21 through 261
stand rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 11 through 13, 19, 20, 27, 28 and 32 through 35
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Barnes.
Claims 2, 4 through 10, 14 through 18 and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Barnes.
Claims 28, 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Riordan in view of Grauel.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over D’Amico in view of Riordan and Grauel.
Claims 32 through 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Dahlin in view of Grauel.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 36) and the
answer (paper number 37) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
1According to the examiner (answer, page 1), claims 3 and
23 through 26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, and to include all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007