Appeal No. 2002-2112
Application No. 08/949,534
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Davis et al. (Davis) 4,991,169 Feb. 5, 1991
O’Connell 5,331,111 July 19, 1994
(filed Oct. 27, 1992)
McLaughlin et al. (McLaughlin) 5,687,222 Nov. 11, 1997
(effective filing date July 26, 19941)
Ninomiya et al. (Ninomiya) 6,088,620 July 11, 2000
(filed Sept. 20, 19962)
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13 and 15 through 21 stand
rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13 and 15 through 21 stand
rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of
enablement.
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 13 and 15 through 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
O’Connell in view of Davis.
1 Appellant has not made an issue of the fact that this date
is after the original application filing date of July 19, 1993.
2 We note again that appellant has not made an issue of the
fact that this date is after the original application filing
date.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007