Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
insufficiently filled cavity of claim 10 be completely filled,
as argued by appellant on page 6 of the brief. Rather, claim
17 imposes a totally different requirement on the claim 10
method, which requirement is inconsistent with the injecting
step previously required by claim 10. Accordingly, the metes
and bounds of claim 17 cannot be determined with any
reasonable degree of certainty since it cannot be determined
whether claim 17 calls for an injecting step that results in
insufficient filling of the mold cavity or complete filling of
the mold cavity. It follows that we will sustain the standing
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 17.
Turning to the standing § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of claim 18, the examiner states:
Claim 18 is rejected . . . as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as
the invention. Claim 18, as most recently amended
by the amendment of August 1, 1994, in line 12,
reads as follows: “contact of said frame with the of
said mold members”, such that “with the of said mold
members” is confusing. [answer, page 6]
Appellant, however, contends that “claim 18 is believed
to be in accordance with Appendix A [of the brief] and does
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007