Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
Claims 1 and 3 through 20 additionally stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which
appellants regard as their invention.
Claims 1, 3 through 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Jones.
Claims 1, 3 through 5, 7 through 9 and 11 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landsberger
in view of Jones.
Claims 6, 10 and 12 through 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Landsberger and
Jones as applied above, and further in view of Baker.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full commentary with
respect to the above-noted rejections and the conflicting
viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding
those rejections, we make reference to the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 17, mailed October 22, 2003) for the examiner's
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007