Appeal No. 97-2227
Application 08/254,978
the terminology appearing in the claims. In claim 1, line 5,4
we interpret “a third and fourth gear” to be -- a third and
fourth gear ratio -- and, line 7, “a second gear” to be -- a
second gear ratio --. This interpretation is necessary in
order to provide consistency with the previously recited “a
first gear ratio” (claim 1, line 4).
We have carefully reviewed the appellant's invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
art applied by the examiner and the respective positions
advanced by the appellant in the brief and by the examiner in
the answer. As a consequence of this review, we will not
sustain any of the above-noted rejections. We will, however,
enter a new rejection of claims 9-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Considering first the rejection of claims 1-9, 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, it is the examiner’s
position that:5
4All reference to lines in claims in this decision is with respect to
the claims as they appear in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
5If the examiner believed that claim 9 was indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, then the examiner should have likewise rejected
dependent claims 10 and 11 on this ground, since they would suffer from the
same deficiencies as parent claim 9 by virtue of their dependency thereon.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007