Appeal No. 1999-1349
Application No. 08/110,115 Page 3
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 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 invention. Claims 1 and 8-11 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Seney in view of
Bargigia. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Seney in view of Bargigia and Remington.
Claims 3-6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Seney in view of Bargigia, Remington and McDow.
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Seney in view of Bargigia, Remington and
Heiskel.
We refer to the brief and reply brief and to the answer for
a complete exposition of the opposing viewpoints expressed by
appellants and the examiner concerning the issues before us on
this appeal.
OPINION
Upon careful consideration of appellants’ specification and
the claims on appeal, the evidence of obviousness relied upon by
the examiner, and the opposing arguments presented by appellants
and the examiner, we find that the aforementioned § 112, second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007