Appeal No. 2003-0786
Application 09/059,712
Dmitroff 2,685,812 Aug. 10, 1954
Grimm et al. (Grimm) 3,354,757 Nov. 28, 1967
Claims 24 through 35, 37, 42 through 44, 46, 48, 50, 52 and
54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the
specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one
skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 25, 26, 43 and 44 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
applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 24 through 29, 34, 35, 37, 42 through 44, 46, 52 and
54 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Grimm in view of Dmitroff.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary with
regard to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by appellant and the examiner regarding those
rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No.
52, mailed September 19, 2002) for the reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to appellant’s brief (Paper No. 51, filed
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007