Appeal No. 2002-1677 Page 3
Application No. 08/944,817
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 19, mailed February 26, 2001) and the answer (Paper No. 25,
mailed December 12, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 24, filed November 20, 2001) and reply brief
(Paper No. 28, filed February 12, 2002) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
In the rejection of claims 1 to 11 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
the examiner (final rejection, pp. 3-4) concluded that these claims were incomplete for
omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007