Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
rejection of the design claim being based on the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The examiner’s statement of the rejection is as follows:
The claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the applicant regards as the
invention.
The claim is indefinite because of the use of
the term "substantially" therein. Cancellation of
said term will overcome the rejection. Ex parte
Sussman, 8 USPQ2d 1443 (BPAI 1988), Ex parte Pappas,
23 USPQ2d 1636 (BPAI 1992) and 37 CFR 1.153. [first
Office action, page 2]
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 112
rejection, we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper
No. 9, mailed January 15, 1998) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the appellant's
brief (Paper No. 8, filed October 31, 1997) and reply brief
(Paper No. 10, filed March 20, 1998) for the appellant's
arguments thereagainst.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007