Appeal No. 2003-0091
Application No. 09/298,640
(Schimmelpenningh)
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 22 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails to
comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 22 through 25, 30, 31 and 35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grolig.
Claims 1 through 3, 5 through 11, 18 through 27 and 34
through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schimmelpenningh.
Claims 12, 13, 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Schimmelpenningh in view of
Fischer.
Claims 14 through 17 and 30 through 33 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schimmelpenningh in
view of Bolton.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 14 and 16) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 15) for the respective positions of the appellant and
examiner regarding the merits of these rejections.1
1 In the final rejection (Paper No. 11), claims 22 through
26, 28 and 35 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,937,611 to Howes. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007