Appeal No. 2002-0936
Application 09/946,920
Claims 1, 2, 5 through 12, 16 and 18 through 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Araki.
Claims 4, 13 through 15, 17 and 22 through 25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Araki.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 6, 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nelson.
Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 24) and to the
final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 18 and 25) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner regarding
the merits of these rejections.2
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1,
2 and 4 through 25
The examiner considers claims 1, 2 and 4 through 25 to be
indefinite because:
Re base claim[s] 1, 11, 16, 22 and 25, it is not
understood how the platforms are structurally
horizontally offset - are the platforms offset
laterally with respect to their major longitudinal
axes, offset longitudinally with respect to their major
axes or what; also, it is not understood as to what
portions of the first supporting surfaces are offset
from the second supporting surface; further, it is not
2 In the final rejection, claims 11 and 12 also stood
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nelson.
As the examiner has not restated this rejection in the answer, we
assume that it has been withdrawn (see Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ
180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957)).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007