Appeal No. 96-2640
Application No. 08/068,273
(4) Claim 2, unpatentable over Copeland in view of PAT, under
35 U.S.C. § 103;
(5) Claim 5, unpatentable over Copeland or PAT in view of
Webb, under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
(6) Claim 6, unpatentable over Copeland or PAT in view of Webb
and Angle or Kubo, under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
(7) Claim 7, unpatentable over Copeland or PAT in view of Webb
and Yoneya or Hosoe, under 35 U.S.C. § 103;
(8) Claim 8, unpatentable over Copeland in view of Anderson,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Rejection (1)
The examiner asserts that claims 3 and 8 are indefinite,
and thus do not comply with the second paragraph of § 112,
because the expression "said mating fit" in claim 3 indicates
that the mating fit referred to is the same as the "mating
fit" recited in parent claim 1, part(b)(i). According to the
examiner, the mating fit recited in claim 1 is between the
lower hollow cylinder and the upper core, while the mating fit
in claim 3 refers to a different mating fit, namely, "a mating
fit between the lower hollow cylinder and said upper cylinder"
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007