Appeal No. 96-3174
Application 07/970,608
not contain the language to which the objection has been made”
(brief, page 6).
Having carefully reviewed the record of the present
application, we find that claim 18 was most recently amended
by the amendment submitted on August 1, 1994 (Paper No. 16),
which amendment contained the following directive:
Claim 18, line 10, delete “are”; line 11, delete
“the”; line 12, after “the” delete “other”; line 16,
change “the” to --a--, and insert --mold-- before
“cavity”. [emphasis added]
As a result of this amendment, the whereby clause at the
end of paragraph (b) of claim 18 now reads “whereby said
oversized mold cavity is formed by contact of said frame with
the of said mold members;”. In that appellant is incorrect in
his belief that claim 18 does not contain the language found
objectionable by the examiner, and in that appellant has not
otherwise disputed the examiner’s determination that the claim
18 as written is confusing, we are constrained to sustain the
standing § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claim 18. We
note, for completeness sake, that we are in agreement with the
examiner’s position that the claim terminology in question is
vague and indefinite to the extent that the recitation “with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007