Appeal No. 2005-1315 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/972,533
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 39, 40, 49 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 36-41 and 45-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Fisher.
Claims 1, 36-41 and 45-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Smith.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed September 2, 2003) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed June 24, 2003) and reply brief (filed November 7, 2003)
for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
1 The obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007