Appeal No. 2001-2656 Page 3
Application No. 09/208,514
to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as
to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly
connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1-10 and 20 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 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Cunningham in view of Platts.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Cunningham in view of Platts and Pedersen.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Zakarin U.S. Patent
No. 5,950,895 in view of Cunningham and Platts.
Claim 20 stands rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Zakarin U.S. Patent
No. 5,950,895 in view of Cunningham, Platts and Pedersen.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007