Appeal No. 2000-1308
Application 08/550,909
2. Claims 18-22 and 25-29 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 of
the invention.
3. Claims 18, 19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Rager.
4. Claims 20 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by the disclosure of Rivest.
5. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Rager.
6. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Finkelstein in view of
Rager.
7. Claims 26-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Finkelstein in view of
Rager and further in view of Rivest.
8. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Finkelstein in view of
Rager and Rivest, and further in view of Pires, Inoue or Mason.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the briefs and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007