Appeal No. 97-0828
Application 08/445,540
scope of these
claims is indefinite due to the garbled manner in which claim
8 was amended in response to the first Office action (see
Paper No. 4). More particularly, claim 8 as amended contains
two periods. It is unclear whether the “whereby” clause which
follows the first period is intended to be part of the claim.
Also, the terms “said first position” and “said second
position” in the clause immediately preceding the first period
lack a proper antecedent basis.
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 4
through 6, 8 and 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed; and
b) a new 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of
claims 8 and 10 through 13 is entered pursuant to 37 CFR
1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203
Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)).
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007