Ex Parte MOYNIHAN et al - Page 3




              Appeal No. 2002-2184                                                                                      
              Application No. 08/406,297                                                                                


              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 applicant regards                 
              as the invention.  Claims 67 and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being                      
              anticipated by Yasuhara.  Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                          
              unpatentable over Gordon, III in view of Hawley.  Claims 2-8 and 10 stand rejected                        
              under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, III in view of Tanaka.1                          
              Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, III                      
              in view of Shimizu.2  Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being                             
              unpatentable over Gordon, III in view of Baker.3  Claim 24 stands rejected under 35                       
              U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, III in view of Komai.  Claim 71 stands                    
              rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuhara in view of                             
              Hubbard.                                                                                                  
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                      
              appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's                      
              answer (Paper No. 44, mailed May 2, 2002) for the examiner's reasoning in support of                      


                     1While the examiner has not recited the reliance upon Hawley in the rejection of the claims        
              dependent on claim 1, we interpret the rejections to also include a reliance thereon.                     
                     2 We note that the examiner has not included Tanaka in the statement of the rejection, but we      
              interpret the rejections including  Tanaka due to its dependency on claim 8.                              
                     3  We do not find that the examiner has set forth a rejection of dependent claim 23.  The examiner 
              indicated at page 7 of the final rejection that claim 23 is objected to and would be allowed if rewritten. This
              objection to claim 23 is unclear since it has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  Therefore, we will not
              address this claim with respect to a prior art rejection, but will address it under 35 U.S.C. § 112.      
                                                           3                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007