Appeal No. 2002-0978
Application 09/535,065
positively recited in the next paragraph. With respect to claims
21 and 22, the “wedge shaped movable jaw” recited in parent claim
12 is not a separate piece from the movable jaw also recited in
the claim. As to the examiner’s observations regarding a “kit”
and claim 22, the examiner fails to state a convincing reason why
the claim, even if directed to a kit, would be indefinite. It
appears that the examiner has been able to determine the metes
and bounds of this claim. It is our opinion that claims 12, 21
and 22 are not indefinite under section 112.
The rejections on appeal are reversed.
REVERSED
IRWIN CHARLES COHEN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. PATE III )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEFFREY V. NASE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
wfp/vsh
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007