Appeal No. 1998-3271
Application No. 08/563,156
THE REFERENCES
Landis et al. (Landis) 4,324,816 Apr. 13, 1982
Kasamatsu 4,708,629 Nov. 24, 1987
Chino et al. (Chino) 5,072,688 Dec. 17, 1991
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) 5,145,528 Sep. 08, 1992
Columbus et al. (Columbus) 5,334,247 Aug. 02, 1994
(filed Jul. 25, 1991)
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 6, 20 and 32
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention;1
claims 5-30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
written description requirement; claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Kasamatsu; claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over Kasamatsu in view of Chino; claims 5-11
and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Watanabe; claims 5-8, 12, 18-20, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
1 In the examiner’s answer this rejection is set forth as being under
the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement requirement. However, the
rejection is argued as if it were under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
using the same language used in the final rejection (mailed September 20,
1996, paper no. 15, page 3) wherein the rejection is stated to be under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Thus, we consider the examiner’s statement
in the examiner’s answer that the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, to be inadvertent and treat the rejection as if it is under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007