Appeal No. 96-1666
Application 08/130,941
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Japanese Patent ‘209 in view of
Hochstein and Icenbice. The remaining claims stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Japanese Patent
‘209 in view of Hochstein and Icenbice as applied above,
further in view of various combinations of Rammos, Hunstman,
and Pizon.
Indefiniteness
The examiner contends that the claim phrase “serving as a
variable tuning inductor” renders the claims indefinite
because no specific structure is recited. The examiner’s
objection addresses the breadth, not indefiniteness, of the
claims. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection.
Obviousness
The examiner’s obviousness rejections require
interpreting the recited “concentric cylindrical coils” as
satisfied by a series of co-axial same-sized loops. For
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007