Appeal No. 98-1461 Page 3
Application No. 08/335,153
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a guardrail cutting
terminal. An understanding of the invention can be derived
from a reading of exemplary claims 17 and 25, which appear in
the appendix to the appellants' brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Bronstad 4,655,434 Apr. 7,
1987
Sicking et al. 5,078,366 Jan.
7, 1992
(Sicking)
Claim 21 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 the
appellants regard as the invention.3
3This rejection, set forth in the final rejection, was
not repeated in the examiner's answer in section 11, Grounds
of Rejection. However, the examiner in section 13 of the
answer, Response to argument, did set forth his position why
claim 21 was considered to be vague and indefinite.
Accordingly, we will treat this rejection as being maintained
by the examiner and subject to our review.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007