Appeal No. 2000-1337
Application No. 08/955,002
of the underlying disclosure.
The examiner’s criticism of the recitations of the
“primary air flow passage” (claims 1, 6 and 9) and the
“secondary air flow passage” (claims 1, 6 and 9) as being
“intangibles” is also unfounded. In the context of the
claimed cooktop burner, these air flow passages are simple,
straightforward and readily understood structural features.
Moreover, that these passageways
might share their delimiting structure with one another and/or
other elements of the burner does not pose any indefiniteness
problem.
Finally, the observations in the last paragraph of the
examiner’s explanation pertain to the adequacy of the
disclosure rather than the definiteness of the claimed subject
matter, and thus have no particular relevance to the rejection
at hand. To the extent that there is a problem with the
disclosure, the examiner is free to deal with it via an
appropriate objection and/or rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007