Appeal No. 2005-0181
Application No. 09/781,631
each of Sections I-XIII, below. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(2003),
as well as Ex parte Schier, 21 USPQ2d 1016, 1018-19 (Bd. Pat.
App. & Int. 1991). See also In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In re Wood, 582 F.2d
638, 642, 199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of unpatentability:
Kamada et al. (Kamada) 3,965,212 Jun. 22, 1976
Gallagher et al. (Gallagher) 4,210,739 July 1, 1980
Goldberg et al. (Goldberg) 4,226,926 Oct. 7, 1980
Hanyu et al. (Hanyu) 5,747,557 May 5, 1998
Tang et al. (Tang) 6,037,392 Mar. 14, 2000
Kulesza et al. (Kulesza) 6,106,891 Aug. 22, 2000
Usui et al. (Usui) 6,288,169 Sep. 11, 2001
Claims 41, 43, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, (indefiniteness).
Claims 35, 36, 54, 56 and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement.
Claims 41-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, (enablement).
Claims 37, 54, 57, 58, 67 and 68 stand objected to under
37 CFR § 1.75(c) as being of improper dependent form for failing
to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim.
Claims 31-33, 35, 37, 38, 42, 45 and 46 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Tang.
Claims 41 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Tang.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007