Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
is “nonresilient” is not also capable of being “elastically
extensible,” and the examiner’s position regarding the
indefiniteness of claim 2 is well taken.
The second assertion in this rejection is that claim 5
also runs afoul of the second paragraph of Section 112.
According to the examiner, claim 5 is indefinite in that it is
“redundant” with line 11 of claim 1 (Answer, page 5) since it
specifies that the “nonresilient” transverse partition recited
in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, be “substantially
inelastic.” While we agree with the examiner that this
amounts to a second inclusion of the same limitation as was
present in the parent claim, such does not cause the claim to
be indefinite.
We therefore will sustain the rejection of claim 2 and
claims 3, 4, 8 and 11, which depend therefrom, under the
second paragraph of Section 112. However, we do not sustain
the
rejection of claim 5 or dependent claims 6, 9 and 12 under
this same section of the statute.
Claims 14-18 and 20 also stand rejected under the second
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007