Appeal No. 98-0194 Page 5
Application No. 08/132,940
brief (Paper No. 17, filed October 2, 1996) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that claim 8 was
"indefinite because exactly what constitutes the drive circuit
being 'altered' [is] unclear." We do not agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007