Appeal No. 2003-0503 2
Application No. 09/687,894
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claims 1, 10
and 15 which appear in Appendix A to appellant’s main brief.
The references relied upon by the examiner in support of rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Metz 5,074,510 Dec. 24, 1991
Gorczyca 6,234,934 May 22, 2001
(filed Jul. 8, 1999)
The following rejections are before us for review:1
(1) Claims 1 and 3-15, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
(2) Claims 1, 4 and 8-12, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Metz.
(3) Claims 3, 5-7, 13 and 14, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Metz.
(4) Claim 15, rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Gorczyca.
1Claims 3-7 depend, either directly or indirectly, from canceled claim 2, the result
of an apparent oversight by appellant during prosecution. Since it appears that
appellant intended claims 3-5 to depend from claim 1, for purposes of this appeal we
will assume this to be the case. Nonetheless, this informality should be corrected upon
return of this application to the Technology Center.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007