Appeal No. 2005-0537
Application No. 08/925,985 Page 13
we are constrained to reverse the examiner's §§ 102 and 103
rejections. We hasten to add that this is a technical reversal
rather than one based upon the merits of the Section 102 and/or
103 rejections.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-10, 25
and 29-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicants regard as invention is
affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4-
10, 25, 29-31 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ye; to reject claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ye; to reject claims 1, 2, 7, 25, 31 and
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hills in
view of Shamouilian, Kao, Zhao, Bhan, Rossman and Ye; and to
reject claims 4-6, 8-10, 26-30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hills in view of Shamouilian, Kao, Zhao,
Bhan, Rossman, Ye, Abraham and Abraham et al is reversed.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007