Appeal No. 97-1646
Application 08/080,890
(2) Claims 1, 8 and 9, unpatentable over Costarelli in view of
Lamb, under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
(3) Claims 5, 10, 11 and 13, unpatentable over Costarelli, under
35 U.S.C. § 103;
(4) Claims 2 to 4, unpatentable over Costarelli in view of Lamb
and Kühnert, under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
(5) Claim 6, unpatentable over Costarelli in view of Kühnert,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.2
Rejection (1)
The examiner asserts that the claims on appeal do not comply
with the second paragraph of § 112 in that they are indefinite on
a number of different grounds.
(a) The examiner contends that various limitations in
claims 1, 5, 8 and 11 are confusing and unclear because they
imply that, contrary to appellants’ disclosure, the cutting
blades are not stationary. For example, the examiner points to3
the expression “a remotely controlled means for causing said
2Rejections (4) and (5) are new grounds of rejection first
raised in the examiner’s answer. Appellants filed a reply brief
in response.
3This ground of rejection would seem to be more aptly
based on the first paragraph (lack of written description) of
§ 112.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007