Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
not review or further discuss the examiner’s action in this
regard.
Rejection (a)
Looking first at the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 as
being indefinite, the examiner contends that these claims do
not pass muster under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
because the
“multiple air flow apertures” recited in the last paragraph of
claim 1 “are inferential[ly] recited” (final rejection, page
3). We agree with appellants, however, that the recitation in
claim 1 of a “reflector plate being intersected by multiple
air flow apertures” is a proper recitation of the structure
being claimed that would be readily understood by an artisan.
Hence, the rejection of claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, shall not be sustained.
Concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claims 21-28, appellants make the following
statement:
Applicants agree with the Examiner’s rejection
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007