Appeal No. 2000-1569
Application 08/964,686
Claims 1, 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which does not
enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention.1
Claims 1, 25, 26, 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard as
their invention. Finally, claims 1, 25, 26, 30 and 31 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness the
examiner offers either Kijima taken alone or Rea taken alone.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
obviousness rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken
into consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants’
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner’s
1 This rejection should have been applied against dependent
claims 25 and 26 as well.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007