Appeal No. 2002-0993 Page 3
Application No. 09/368,781
Claims 21 and 38 to 44 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 appellants regard as the invention.
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Root.
Claims 1 to 5, 8 to 11, 14 to 16, 19, 20, 22 to 25, 27, 28 and 38 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Root.
Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Root in view of Petersen.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection, the answer (Paper No. 18, mailed November 30, 2001) and the supplemental
answer (Paper No. 20, mailed February 19, 2003) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 16, filed September
21, 2001) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007