Appeal No. 95-3161
Application 08/090,921
for doing the same. In other words, the claim requires that
there be no choices in what to do for moving the magazine into
and out of the apparatus if
the magazine is to be oriented properly in the apparatus. For
instance, with respect to claim 1, it can be seen in Figure 1
that the tong 82 must be aligned with and fit within groove
64, if the magazine 70 is to be properly oriented with the
apparatus.
Accordingly, claims 1, 5 and 9 are not vague or
indefinite. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5
and 9 on the ground of indefiniteness.
The rejection of claims 1, 5 and 9
as being unpatentable over Tamachi and Taylor
We reject the appellants’ argument that the examiner
ignored the claim requirement that the magazine alignment
means is for proper orientation of the open front of the
magazine within the apparatus. Even if Taylor’s magazine is
designed to be moved
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007