Appeal No. 2005-1216
Application No. 10/117,453
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I. Claims 30-41 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 inventors had possession of
the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
II. Claims 30, 31 and 34-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hillenkamp I.
III. Claims 30, 31 and 34-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hillenkamp II.
IV. Claims 30, 31 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by Vestal.
V. Claims 32, 33 and 38-41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hillenkamp I, Hillenkamp II, or Vestal in view of Fodor.
We reverse Rejections I and IV; vacate Rejections II, III and V; and set forth two
new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007