Appeal No. 97-2734
Application 08/394,067
distinctly claim that which appellants regard as their inven-
tion. In the examiner's view (answer, page 4), the terms
"dynamically" and "dynamic" are unclear "because the term
'dynamic' was found to be vague and confusing as to its mean-
ing." The examiner goes on to urge that "[i]t is unclear
whether the recited term refers to 'movement' or
'energy/forces'."
In addition to the foregoing rejections, the
appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
a) claims 1 through 4, 8, 9 and 12 as being
unpatentable over Stein in view of Acosta;
b) claim 10 as being unpatentable over Stein in view
of Acosta as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Hansen; and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007