Appeal No. 1999-1190
Application 08/481,367
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 7 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention,
and claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over JP ‘200 and also over Wu or Boquillon, each
of these two in view of EPA ‘646.2
OPINION
We vacate the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, and reverse the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues that “a solid state type laser” in
claim 7 is vague and indefinite and that “the collection
means” in claim 10 has inadequate antecedent basis (answer,
page 4). In response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, which was a new ground of rejection in the
examiner’s answer, the appellants submitted with their reply
brief an amendment (filed August 6, 1997, paper no. 16)
2A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over U.S. 5,151,135 to
Magee et al. in view of EPA ‘646 is withdrawn in the
examiner’s answer (page 3).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007