Appeal No. 2000-0209 Page 15
Application No. 08/693,985
argues (brief, pp. 6-7; reply brief, p. 1) that claim 2 is
definite since it is commonly understood that the hanger
bracket is part of the chassis. We find this argument
unpersuasive since claim 2 makes clear that the claimed hanger
bracket is not part of the claimed chassis since claim 2
recites that the hanger bracket is "rigidly mounted on said
chassis." Accordingly, we sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 2, and
of claims 3/2, 4 and 5 dependent on claim 2.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 2, 3/2, 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed; the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed;
and the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 to 5, 8 to
10 and 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007