Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
22. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 15, 27, 28, 30, 43-47, 58, and 65-77
stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine of double
patenting over claims 1-12 of Appellant's U.S. Patent
5,623,531 (new ground of rejection in 2dSEA).
The Examiner states that "[t]he rejection[s] of claims 9
and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) have been withdrawn"
(3dSEA58). Apparently, this statement is a holdover from the
[Second] Supplemental Examiner's Answer, which withdrew the
previous § 103(a) rejection of claim 9 over Gillig and Hong
and the rejection of claim 15 over Gillig and Sakanishi,
because no rejection of claims 9 and 15 was contained in the
[Second] Supplemental Examiner's Answer.
It is noted that there is no rejection of claim 62.
OPINION
1. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 30, 43-45, 58, 67-72, and 77:
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner considers the alternative term "and/or" in
claims 1, 7, 9, 30, 58, and 77 to be indefinite (2dSEA26). We
disagree. The term "and/or" is broad, not indefinite. For
example, in claim 1, which contains the phrase "transmit
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007