Appeal No. 1999-2328 Page 2
Application No. 08/485,492
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a moving table system. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which has been
reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Pryor 5,380,095 Jan. 10, 1995
Joffe et al. (Joffe) 5,407,519 Apr. 18, 1995
The following are the rejections as set forth on pages 3 and 4 of the final
rejection (Paper No. 19):
Claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 11 are 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 reasonably convey to one skilled in the
relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had
possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
and second paragraphs, as the claimed invention is not described in such
full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the
art to make and use the same, and/or for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8 and 11, to the extent understood, are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or (e) as being anticipated by Pryor or Joffe
et al.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007