Appeal No. 19987-3176 Page 3
Application No. 08/388,788
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants
regard as invention. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Chen. Claims 1 and 5 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Chen. Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chen in view of Smith. Claims 1, 4-10
and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anno. Claims 1, 2 and 6-11 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weber.
Rather than reiterating the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the examiner’s answer and to
appellants’ briefs for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
We reverse all of the rejections advanced by the examiner
for substantially the reasons set forth in appellants’ briefs.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
appellants’ specification and the prior art, sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007