Ex parte FOX et al. - Page 3




                     Appeal No. 95-2502                                                                                                                                                
                     Application No. 07/763,625                                                                                                                                        

                     U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for                                                                                                           
                     failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the                                                                                                        
                     subject matter which appellants regard as their invention.                                                                                                        
                     Reference is made to the examiner’s answer for details of                                                                                                         
                     these rejections.                    3                                                                                                                            
                                We cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of the                                                                                                      
                     appealed claims under § 102(b).  In all of the independent                                                                                                        
                     claims (namely method claims 1 and 21 and apparatus claim 10),                                                                                                    
                     the processing data for improving future piecing operations                                                                                                       
                     includes not only  the deviation of the thread diameter from a                                                                                                    
                     given diameter, but also the locations of the deviations                                                                                                          
                     relative to the piecer.  Claim 1, for example, recites the                                                                                                        
                     step of evaluating and counting the locations of the                                                                                                              
                     deviations with respect to the piecer, while claim 21 recites                                                                                                     
                     that the measured data includes the location of each deviation                                                                                                    
                     relative to the piecer.  In apparatus claim 10, the issued                                                                                                        


                          3According to the examiner’s statement on page 6 of the                                                                                                      
                          answer, the final rejection of the appealed claims under                                                                                                     
                          35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the Lassmann                                                                                                      
                          patent has been withdrawn.  The rejection of claims 1,                                                                                                       
                          14, 21 and 22 under the second paragraph of § 112 has not                                                                                                    
                          been carried forward to the answer and therefore is                                                                                                          
                          presumed to be withdrawn.  See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ                                                                                                        
                          180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).                                                                                                                                    
                                                                                          3                                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007