Appeal No. 95-2111
Application 07/771,173
applicant must petition the Commissioner to obtain review of
an examiner’s designation of a rejection as final.
We have carefully reviewed the appellants’ invention
as described in the specification, the appealed claims, the
prior art applied by the examiner, and the respective
positions advanced by the appellants and the examiner. As a
consequence of this review, we make the determinations that
follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as
the invention. The examiner states:
The following rejections are based on
Appellants contention that the radiation
exiting the Davies device “is not an
annular pattern” as asserted in the
response received September 21, 1992 in the
first full paragraph on page 6.
All the claims are indefinite because it
is unclear exactly what is to be
encompassed by the term “annular”.
[Examiner’s Answer, page 4].
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007