Appeal No. 1998-3006 Page 7
Application No. 08/586,977
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by
the examiner of the claims on appeal.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that
[w]ith respect to claim 1, line 2, "such as lines
and ropes" is an improper recitation because it recites a
narrower limitation within a broader limitation in the
form of an example and should be deleted, i.e,. [sic,
i.e.,] the broader limitation is "elongated members" and
the narrower limitation is "such as lines and ropes.["]
With respect to claim 9, lines 1-2, what constitutes
"or the like"?
With respect to claim 1, the appellants argue (brief, p.
6) that "in nautical language, the term "line" is commonly
used to describe what one would call a "rope" when ashore" and
that the examiner "has cited no authority for the proposition
that ropes are not lines."
In our view, the appellants have misunderstood the
examiner's basis for the rejection of claim 1 as being
indefinite. The examiner did not reject claim 1 on the basis
that "ropes are not lines." The examiner's basis was that the
phrase "such as ropes and lines" following the recitation
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007