Appeal No. 96-1419
Application 08/081,971
second portions of the base member. In contrast, the specifi-
cation states on page 7 that the mirror support rod 26 is
received in the bore 68, not in the slot between the curved or
arcuate wall surfaces 30 and 50. According to appellants’
specification, therefore, the support rod is not received in a
“slot” of any kind. Thus, while the claim language may off hand
seem clear in the abstract, the recitation that the support rod
is deployed in the claimed slot generates confusion when read in
light of the specification, thus rendering claim 8 indefinite.
Claim 9 is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis
for the “means for joining,” “the first portion,” “the second
portion” and each recitation of the “T-channel.” It is noted that
claim 9 is recited to be dependent from claim 7, not claim 8.
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
reversed, and a new ground of rejection has been entered against
claims 8 and 9 pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007