Appeal No. 1998-2500
Application No. 08/276,154
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the appealed
claims is:
Anderson et al. (Anderson) EP-0 540 114 A1 May 5, 1993
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the
claims are not supported by the specification as originally filed and, as claimed, the disclosed
structure cannot perform the function claimed. (See answer at page 4.) Claims 17-20 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 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over EP-
0 540 114 A1 (Anderson).
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 14, mailed Jan. 27, 1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13, filed Nov. 5, 1996) for the appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007