Appeal No. 2004-0366 Page 4
Application No. 09/848,044
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 15, mailed August 12, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 11, filed May 27, 2003) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 20, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
In the final rejection (p. 2) and the answer (p. 3), the examiner set forth his
rationale as to why claims 20, 22 and 23 were indefinite.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007