Appeal No. 97-1029
Application 08/456,166
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter the appellants regard as the invention;
b) claims 25, 28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Romaine; and 2
c) claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Romaine in view of Koide.
Reference is made to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 10 and 11½) and to the examiner’s main and
supplemental answers (Paper Nos. 11 and 13) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to
the merits of these inventions.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection rests on
the examiner’s determination that claim 27 is indefinite
because the term “the outer surface” which appears therein
lacks a proper antecedent basis (see pages 4, 6 and 7 in the
main answer). The appellants, stating that they “are willing
to amend claim 27 to provide proper antecedent basis by
2In the final rejection, claim 27 also was rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Romaine. The
examiner has since withdrawn this rejection in view of the
amendment of parent claim 26 subsequent to final rejection.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007