Appeal No. 2004-0323 Page 3
Application No. 09/716,045
Claims 3 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as
to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the appellants, at the time
the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 10, 12 and 13 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 the appellants regard as the invention.1
Claims 1, 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Kitchen in view of Larsen.2
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Kitchen in view of Larsen and Methfessel.
1 While the examiner failed to include claim 13 in the statement of the rejection (see page 3 of the
second Office action), the examiner did include claim 13 in the body of the rejection (see page 4 of the
second Office action).
2 While the examiner rejected dependent claim 4 in a separate rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
based on Kitchen (see page 7 of the second Office action), we believe it is apparent that the examiner
intended to rely on both Kitchen and Larsen as applied to parent claim 1.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007