Appeal No. 97-2483
Application 08/575,830
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Grote in view of Rosenberg. Claim 7 additionally stands
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 appellants regard as
their invention.
Considering first the rejection of dependent claim 7
under the second paragraph of § 112, the examiner’s difficulty
with the claim language centers on the recitation in parent
claim 2 that there are two channels in the tool housing and on
the conflicting recitation in claim 7 that there is “at least
one said channel” such that the language of claim 7 is broad
enough to encompass a tool having just one channel.
Appellants’ arguments traversing the examiner’s
rejection under the second paragraph of § 112 as set forth on
page 8 of the brief are unpersuasive. In the first place, the
amendments made to claim 7 after the final rejection were not
entered by the examiner. Thus, contrary to appellants’
contention, claim 7 was not amended in the manner stated.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007