Appeal No. 2001-0740
Application 09/054,415
appears to be tying himself up in needless symantic [sic,
semantic] issues that have not relationship to either the
disclosure nor [sic, or] to the real world" (Br9).
We have considered the examiner's reasons but are not
persuaded of any indefiniteness problem with claim 11. Claim 11
reads on Fig. 7 in a straightforward manner. The rejection of
claim 11 is reversed.
Claims 15 (and 12)
The examiner states that claim 15 could be incomplete since
it recites "steps" on line 1, but then only recites one step for
increasing current (EA5).
Appellants argue that claim 15 is not incomplete and that
the method is clear, but offer to amend "steps" to be --step--
(Br10).
The examiner indicates that changing "steps" to --step--
would be acceptable to resolve the problem (EA12).
We agree with the examiner that claim 15 is technically
indefinite because the plural "steps" in the preamble does not
agree with the single step in the body. Thus, we will sustain
the rejection of claim 15. The problem can be overcome by the
amendment proposed by appellants. It is noted that claim 12 has
the same problem, although it was not rejected.
Claim 17
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007