Appeal No. 2002-1672
Application No. 09/412,124
Claims 1-8 and 12-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failure to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
12, 17, 19, 20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by each one of Circello and Argade. In a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims 1-4, 5, 7, 12-14, 17,
19, 20, and 22 stand rejected. As evidence of obviousness, the
Examiner offers Nakano in view of Baird with respect to claims 1,
2, 4, 5, 12, 17, 19, 20, and 22, adds Mehring to the basic
combination with respect to claims 3 and 13, and adds Argade to
the basic combination with respect to claims 7 and 14. In
further, separate, rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), claims
1-7, 12-14, 17-20, and 22 stand rejected as being unpatentable
over Bridges in view of Nakano, and as being unpatentable over
Argade in view of Nakano.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs1 and Answer for the
respective details.
OPINION
1 The Appeal Brief was filed October 16, 2001 (Paper no. 12). In
response to the Examiner’s Answer dated December 10, 2001 (Paper No. 13), a
Reply Brief was filed February 12, 2002 (Paper No. 14), which was acknowledged
and entered by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated February
21, 2002 (Paper No. 15).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007