Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
of Claim 21 in line 14 where the phrase “air flow
apertures” should be --multiple discharge ports--.
Applicants will make this change if the claims are
allowed under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicants respectfully
disagree with the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 23
and 24 as the “air flow apertures” are properly
recited in Claim 23, line 4 as being part of the
reflector plate. [Brief, page 7.]
In that appellants have acquiesced in the examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, we shall summarily sustain this rejection.
Further, since appellants have not argued the merits of this
rejection as it applies to claims 22 and 25-28, which depends
either directly
or indirectly from claim 21, we also shall summarily sustain
the § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 22 and 25-28.
Concerning dependent claims 23 and 24, while we appreciate
that claim 23, and claim 24 through its dependence on claim
23, properly recites the “air flow apertures” as being part of
the reflector plate, these claims depend, either directly or
indirectly, from claim 21 and therefore include all of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007