Appeal No. 1998-1855 4
Application No. 08/459,537
first paragraph as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in
such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s),
at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 through 17 and 32 through 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear,
concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the
same, and/or for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 37, 44 and 51 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 appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 1 through 3, 6 through 17, and 27 through 52 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hackl taken with Krebs-Yuill.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Hackl taken with Krebs-Yuill and further in view of Gross.
Claims 1 through 17 and 27 through 52 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
1 through 37 of U. S. Patent No. 5,246,486 (Brierley ‘486).
Claims 1 through 17 and 27 through 52 stand rejected under the judicially
created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007