Ex parte MALIK et al. - Page 12

          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.                                 


Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007