Appeal No. 2003-1162 Page 6
Application No. 09/468,292
Issue (7) Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Frigo, Freemantle and
Biefeld or Hartmann and further in view of AAPA.
Issue (11) Claims 46-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as lacking compliance
with the written description requirement. For this issue, the claims stand or fall
together (Amended Brief, p. 5).
Issue (12) Claims 59 and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 as lacking compliance
with the written description requirement. For this issue, the claims stand or fall
together (Amended Brief, p. 5).
Issue (13) Claims 59-72 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
applicant regards as the invention. We break this issue into two groups in
accordance with Appellant’s grouping of the claims (Amended Brief, p. 5):
Issue (13a): Claims 59 and 60
Issue (13b): Claims 61-72
With respect to Issues (1a), (1b), (2), (6), (7), (12), (13a) and (13b), we affirm
substantially for the reasons presented by the Examiner. We reverse with respect to Issue (11).
Our reasons follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007