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final rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by the Lassmann patent has been withdrawn.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and 22 under the second paragraph of § 112 has not been carried forward to the answer and therefore is presumed to be withdrawn.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). 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007