Appeal No. 1998-2418
Application No. 08/686,883
part and reversed-in-part. Our reasons for this determination
follow.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 21
through 26 and 36 as indefinite.
Claims 21 through 26 and 36 stand 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 appellant regards as the invention.
The examiner rejects claims 21 and 24 through 26 for the
reason that "[t]he phrase 'the other end being free of any
handle' is indefinite because such a negative limitation would
appear to have no clear meaning when used with open language
such as 'comprising'" (answer, pages 4 and 5). Regarding
claim 36, the examiner states "the phrase 'the tubular portion
being frictionally releasably held in the central opening' is
inaccurate and indefinite" id.
Claims are considered to satisfy the requirements in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007