Appeal No. 96-1692
Application 08/156,811
(Paper No. 13, filed September 8, 1995) for appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 5, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we
note that the examiner's position is that
[t]he terms "the selected type" or "the
selected style" or "selected drive
system" in appellant's [sic] claims are
vague and indefinite because it is not
apparent which "selected type" or which
"selected style" or which "selected
drive system" is claimed. Since the
drive systems and/or styles are mutually
exclusive the claims cannot recite that
both systems are operating at the same
time or that both styles are
structurally connected at the same time
(answer, page 4).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007