Appeal No. 95-2909
Application 08/048,270
movable within the meaning of these claims. Reading the
expression “relatively movable” in light of appellant’s
disclosure, it is evident that what is intended thereby is
relative movability of each paddle relative to the other, not
merely of a part of one paddle to a part of the other.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejections (2) and (3)
The Gvoich and Schaub secondary references applied in these
rejections do not supply the deficiencies of the primary
reference, Hribar, noted above. Rejections (2) and (3) will
therefore not be sustained.
Rejection (4)
This rejection, made as a new ground of rejection in the
Supplemental Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 14), is based on the
examiner’s holding that claim 6 is indefinite because the terms
“said return line” and “said feedline” lack antecedent basis in
parent claim 1, which “does not require a feedline that is
separate from the return line” (Supplemental Examiner’s Answer,
page 6).
In response, the appellant filed a Reply to Supplemental
Examiner’s Answer and Amendment C; the latter paper amended claim
1 “to overcome a formal objection [sic: rejection] to claim 6 in
the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer.” The examiner then issued a
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007