Appeal 2006-2501
Application 10/104,468
Further, the purpose of the foregoing abstract is to enable the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the public generally, and
especially the scientists, engineers and practitioners in the art
who are not familiar with patent or legal terms or phraseology,
to determine quickly from a cursory inspection the nature and
essence of the technical disclosure of the application. The
abstract is not intended to define the invention of the
application, which is measured by the claims, nor is the abstract
intended to be limiting as to the scope of the invention in any
way.
….
While there have been described and illustrated specific
embodiments of the invention, it will be clear that variations in
the details of the embodiments specifically illustrated
and described may be made without departing from the true
spirit and scope of the invention as defined in the appended
claims and their legal equivalents.
As evidence of unpatentability of the claimed subject matter, the
Examiner has relied upon the following references:
Ekstrand US 5,048,032 Sep. 10, 1991
Okumura US 5,558,722 Sep. 24, 1996
Usui US 5,591,268 Jan. 7, 1997
Takagi US 5,681,393 Oct. 28, 1997
Bailey US 6,320,320 B1 Nov. 20, 2001
(filed Nov. 15, 1999)
The Examiner has rejected the claims on appeal as follows1:
1 The Examiner states that the § 112, first paragraph rejection of claims 1
through 5, 8 through 10, 12 through 17, and 19 through 21 set forth in the
final Office action dated August 27, 2004 has been withdrawn (Answer 29).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013