Appeal No. 2006-1759 Παγε 18
Application No. 09/984,184
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim what appellants
regard as their invention; and to reject claim 44 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, at
the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed
invention is reversed. The decision of the examiner to reject
claims 1-50 and 52-69 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Collin in view of Mellul; and to reject claims
51 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Collin in view of Mellul and Papantoniou is affirmed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007