Appeal No. 96-0643
Application 08/103,677
as applied to Claims 1-2, and further in view of Liu. Fourth, Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over admitted prior art Figure 8B in view of admitted prior art Figure 7 as
applied to Claims 1-2, and further in view of Suzuki. Fifth, Claims 4-5 and 12 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over admitted prior art Figure 8B in view of Liu. Sixth, Claim 6 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over admitted prior art Figure 8B in view of Liu as
applied to Claims 4-5, further in view of Hasegawa.
1. Indefiniteness of Claims 4-6, 9-10, and 12
Claims 4-6, 9-10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
indefinite.
According to the examiner, Claim 4 is indefinite due to the phrase “generally coplanar
portions.” The examiner states that the base portion illustrated in the Figures is not generally coplanar
with the head holding portion.
Appellants consider the recited “base portion” to include head arm support portion 77 and base
lug 81. As illustrated in Figure 3, that base portion is generally coplanar with head holding portion 83.
In any event, Claim 4 does not require the entire “base portion” be generally coplanar with the head
holding portion. Claim 4 only requires a “portion” of the base portion be generally coplanar with the
head holding portion. Portion 81 is a “portion” of the base portion generally coplanar with the head
holding portion. We can discern no indefiniteness in Claim 4.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007