Appeal No. 2001-1306 Page 3
Application No. 08/100,019
Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of an enabling disclosure.1
Claims 1 through 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Ames.
Claims 1 through 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16 and 17 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Guez.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Ames and alternatively under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ames in view of
Jones.
Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Guez and alternatively under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guez in view of
Jones.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the Examiner and Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 36, mailed
June 8, 1999) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning, the appeal
brief (Paper No. 35, filed May 17, 1999) and the reply brief
1 Appellant filed an amendment on August 12, 1999
simultaneously with the reply brief, canceling claims 7 and 15,
which was denied entry by the Examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007