Appeal No. 97-1033
Application 08/190,485
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 5. These claims constitute all of the claims in the
application.
Appellant’s invention pertains to a bearing clearance
detector and method of applying a vacuum or air pressure thereto.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claims 1 and 4, copies of which appear in the
amendment dated July 10, 1995 (Paper No. 7). 2
As evidence of anticipation, the examiner has applied
the document listed below:
Schuh 4,928,400 May 29, 1990
The following rejections are before us for review.
Claims 1 through 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. 3
2 The copy of claim 4 in the brief includes a typographical
error in reciting “air or air pressure” (line 6).
3 Particularly in light of appellant’s concession that the
rejection is proper (brief, page 3) and the circumstance that the
examiner has not expressly stated that the rejection is with-
drawn, we view the omission of the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, in section (9) of the answer (page 3)
as simply inadvertent.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007