Appeal No. 2002-1590 Page 11
Application No. 09/511,516
examiner’s rejections of claims 16 and 20 based alternatively on
Hjerpe and Laue or Okuhara and Laue, we have reviewed the patents
to Cannon and Laue, but find nothing therein that provides for
that which we have indicated above to be lacking in the
examiner’s basic references to Hjerpe and Okuhara. Accordingly,
the examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 13, 16, 18 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) will also not be sustained.
To summarize, the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 9
through 12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated
by Hjerpe has not been sustained; nor has the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9 through 11, 14, 15, 17 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Okuhara. In
addition, each of the examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) has not been sustained. However, the rejection of
claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regard as
their invention, has been sustained.
The decision of the examiner is accordingly affirmed-in-
part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007