Appeal No. 2001-2629 Page 3
Application No. 08/931,080
(1) Claims 12, 16 and 18 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.
(2) Claims 11, 16, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schmitz in view of Cooper, Reindl and Pigneul.
(3) Claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Schmitz in view of Cooper, Reindl and Pigneul.
(4) Claims 2, 12 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schmitz in view of Cooper, Reindl, Pigneul and Gagnon.
(5) Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schmitz
in view of Cooper, Reindl, Pigneul, Stevens and Enloe.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 29) and the final rejection (Paper No. 16) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Substitute Brief (Paper No. 27) and
Substitute Reply Brief (Paper No. 33) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
2(...continued)
§ 103(a), and of claims 1-4, 11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, were withdrawn in the
Answer (see the paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007