Appeal No. 2005-2211 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/715,002
rejection (mailed September 29, 2004) and answer (mailed April 26, 2005) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the brief (filed April
11, 2005) and reply brief (filed June 27, 2005) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 7-21 and 28-31 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, 5-8 and 15-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Scrivo.
Claims 9 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Scrivo in view of Sturrus.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Scrivo.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Scrivo.
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Scrivo or Scrivo in view of Sturrus and further in view of Hamaya.
Claims 22-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Scrivo or Scrivo in view of Sturrus further in view of Glance.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007