Appeal No. 96-4137
Application 08/260,674
positions, reference is made to the appellant’s brief (Paper
No. 25), the appellant’s reply brief (Paper No. 28), the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 26), the examiner’s supplemental
answer (Paper No. 30), and the examiner’s second supplemental
answer (Paper No. 32) for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
In reaching our conclusions on the issues raised in
this appeal, we have carefully considered appellant’s
specification and claims, the applied references and the
respective viewpoints advanced by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the rejection of claims 22 and 23
under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. It is the examiner’s
position that the word “average” which occurs several times in
both claims 22 and 23 is indefinite, since it appears to be
referring to the broad range of sizes of which the furniture
could be made.
We initially note that the purpose of the
requirements stated in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007