Appeal No. 2004-0312
Application No. 09/277,534
All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Perobelli.
Claims 1, 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Curtze.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lisec ‘555.
Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lisec ‘555 and Curtze.
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable Lisec ‘555 in view of Lisec ‘244.
Finally, claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curtze in view of Lisec
'244.
On page 6 of the brief (i.e., the second supplemental appeal
brief filed January 23, 2003), the appellant indicates that the
appealed claims do not stand or fall together. Accordingly, to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007