Appeal No. 95-2440
Application 07/705,726
creates indefiniteness. It is our view, one of ordinary skill
in the art would not be able to ascertain the intended scope
of the claims because the meaning of the expression "means
comprising (in turn) ..." is not understood. The expression
has not been defined or clarified in appellants'
specification.
Moreover, the examiner has rejected claims 46 through 50,
52, 57 through 61, 63 and 72 through 98 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Curran,
Wehner, Potts and Wolf. To the extent the rejection is
applied to the claims 46 through 50, 52, 57 through 61, 63 and
72 through 76, we shall not sustain it. Suffice to say that
the examiner has not met the burden of establishing a prima
facie case of unpatent-ability of the claimed subject matter.
See, e.g., the reasons expressed by appellants in their Brief
and Reply Brief.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007