Appeal No. 96-1678
Application 08/322,731
in the manner proposed. The mere fact that Röder could be so
modified is not sufficient in this respect. See In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). This
constitutes an additional reason necessitating reversal.
In light of the above, we shall not sustain the § 103
rejection of claim 19. With respect to the § 103 rejections of
claims 21 and 26, we have also reviewed the Voss and Sackenreuter
references applied, respectively, thereagainst but find nothing
therein to make up for the deficiencies of Röder, Scheuter and
Salmela noted above. Therefore, we also shall not sustain the
§ 103 rejections of claims 21 and 26.
New rejections pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
the following new rejections.
Claims 19, 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which appellants regards as
the invention.
Claim 19, lines 15-17, calls for “means for lowering said
air distributor at least in part from said lower wedge-shaped
gap,” while claim 19, lines 37-38, calls for “means mounting said
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007