Ex parte BAHR - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2001-0610                                                                  Page 2                 
              Application No. 08/931,932                                                                                   


              derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the                            
              appellant's Brief.                                                                                           
                     The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                        
              appealed claims is:                                                                                          
              Ohlson                                     3,425,314                    Feb. 4, 1969                         
                     Claims 3-10, 16 and 18 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 the appellant regards as the invention.                                                                
                     Claims 1, 12, 15, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                          
              clearly anticipated by Ohlson.                                                                               
                     Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable                         
              over Ohlson.                                                                                                 
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                     
              appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper                       
              No. 7) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief                  
              (Paper No. 6) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 8) for the appellant's arguments                                    
              thereagainst.                                                                                                
                                                        OPINION                                                            











Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007