Appeal No. 97-0677
Application No. 08/312,710
CLAIM 2
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pyzytulla in view of
Ames, noting simply that the appellants' argument that the
limitation that the "body portion outside surface is positioned
in a tangential plane in close proximity to a tangential plane
along said handling ring outer surface" is not taught by
Pyzytulla and that the combined teachings of Pyzytulla and Ames
would not have suggested this limitation is not germane to
claim 2 since such a limitation is not recited in this claim
and that the appellants have not otherwise contested the
correctness of this rejection.
RECOMMENDED NEW REJECTION UNDER 37 CFR § 1.196(d)
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(d), this panel of
the Board remands the application to the examiner and
recommends the following new rejection of allowed claim 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention, for the reasons explained below.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007