Appeal No. 2003-1725
Application No. 09/357,645 Page 3
which applicants regard as invention. Claims 1-7, 12-28 and 32
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Payne.
We refer to the briefs 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
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner and have determined that the
examiner’s § 112, second paragraph rejection is not sustainable.
Accordingly, we reverse the aforementioned rejection of the
appealed claims. With regard to the examiner’s § 103(a)
rejection, we affirm as to claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 22-27; and, we
reverse as to claims 5, 12-21, 28 and 32. Our reasons follow.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner has expressed a number of concerns with the
language of the appealed claims. However, we agree with
appellants’ viewpoint on this matter since the examiner has not
established how any of the appealed claims run afoul of the
provisions of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is whether the claim language, as it would have been
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007