Appeal No. 2000-1963
Application No. 09/272,989
following comments, our decision to do so does not prejudice
the appellant in any way. The examiner’s
determination that claim 1 is indefinite rests on an alleged
lack of antecedent basis in the claim for the term “the other”
(see page 3 in the answer). As indicated above, this term
appears within the recitation defining the connector means as
“interlocking when one of said ends overlaps the other of said
ends when said elongate strip is wrapped around and projects
from an end of said housing.” Because claim 1 earlier sets
forth the elongate strip as having “a length between ends,”
the reference to one and “the other” of the ends does have a
proper and clear antecedent basis.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claim 1.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
Villarreal, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
sunshade constructed to be rotatably mounted on a rifle scope
to reduce the deleterious effects of glare and reflected
light. The sunshade 10, made of a flexible and resilient
material, comprises an elongated body 13 having a scope-
grasping collar 14 at one end 17 and a viewing slot 19
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007