Appeal No. 95-2502
Application No. 07/763,625
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.
Reference is made to the examiner’s answer for details of
these rejections. 3
We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of the
appealed claims under § 102(b). In all of the independent
claims (namely method claims 1 and 21 and apparatus claim 10),
the processing data for improving future piecing operations
includes not only the deviation of the thread diameter from a
given diameter, but also the locations of the deviations
relative to the piecer. Claim 1, for example, recites the
step of evaluating and counting the locations of the
deviations with respect to the piecer, while claim 21 recites
that the measured data includes the location of each deviation
relative to the piecer. In apparatus claim 10, the issued
3According to the examiner’s statement on page 6 of the
answer, the final rejection of the appealed claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the Lassmann
patent has been withdrawn. The rejection of claims 1,
14, 21 and 22 under the second paragraph of § 112 has not
been carried forward to the answer and therefore is
presumed to be withdrawn. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ
180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007