Appeal No. 1996-3386
Application No. 08/136,123
"adjacent long and short projections" in line 12 is not
preceded by "said" or "the" it is unclear whether the
projections are the same as those introduced in the first
paragraph of the claim or if there are additional projections.
If there are extra projections, then the slant side surfaces
referenced in line 12 would be for those extra projections and
would lack antecedent basis. In other words, without a clear
indication that the slant side surfaces and projections of
line 12 are the same as those
recited earlier in the claim, the claim can be interpreted two
different ways. Accordingly, we agree that claim 1 is indefi-
nite. The same language can be found in each of claims 2
through 4. Therefore, we will affirm the rejection of claims
1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.3
We note that both the examiner and appellants discuss the3
inconsistencies between the preambles of claims 6 through 9, 18, and 19 and of
the claims from which they depend as if the claims were rejected as being
indefinite, though technically there is no formal rejection of claims 6
through 9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Nonetheless,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007