Appeal No. 97-1840 Page 5
Application No. 08/316,685
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Initially we note that the appellant's disagreement with
the changes to the specification relates to a petitionable
matter and not to an appealable matter. See Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002 and 1201. Accordingly, we
can not resolve the issue raised by the appellant on page 6 of
the brief and page 3 of the reply brief. Nevertheless, we
wish to note that the appellant's proposed changes to Figures
1 and 2 appear to be consistent with the originally filed
specification while the examiner's changes to page 6, line 16
to page 7, line 4, introduce an inconsistency into the
specification since the examiner failed to make similar
changes to lines 5-18 of page 7.
The indefiniteness issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007