Appeal No. 2004-0568
Application No. 09/229,547
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claims 3, 9,
15 and 16 under § 112, second paragraph. We concur with the
examiner that the language "said plurality of single piece blind
fasteners" of claim 3, and "the plurality of single piece blind
fasteners" of claim 9, is indefinite inasmuch as there is no
prior antecedent basis in the claims for such single piece blind
fasteners. Appellants do not address the single piece aspect of
the claim language, and we concur with the examiner that it is
not clear, for example, whether the "blind fastener attachments"
and "plurality of single piece blind fasteners" of claim 3 are
the same.
As for claim 15, we agree with the examiner that the
language "the attachment area . . . is enlarged" is indefinite
because the claim does not set forth any basis for comparison.
We also agree with the examiner that the claim 15 language
"thereby replacing the load carrying capability of high density
core and fasteners . . ." is indefinite since it is not clear how
the attachment area replaces the capability of the core and
fasteners. Manifestly, reducing the load on the core and
fasteners does not effect the load carrying capability of the
elements.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007