Appeal No. 1999-0608 Page 12
Application No. 08/571,471
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
the following new grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 1 through 3 are 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 appellant regards as the invention.
As discussed above and incorporated herein, our review of
the appellant's specification leads us to conclude that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand the
metes and bounds of the terminology "substantially polyimide"
in independent claim 1. As claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1
and thus incorporate all of the limitations therein, these
claims are likewise indefinite.
2. Claims 1 through 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art of Figure 1 as
described on page 1, third paragraph, of the appellant's
specification in view of Manwiller and Moriguchi.
According to Figure 1 and page 1 of the appellant's
specification, a conventional, or prior art, dental hand-piece
comprises a rolling bearing assembly (2), including a retainer
(1) disposed between inner and outer members, for rotatably
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007