Appeal No. 96-4152
Application 08/177,391
The § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The basis for the examiner’s rejection of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is found on
page 3 of the answer and reads as follows:2
In claim 11, line 11 it is unclear as to what
structural limitation is implied by "at opposite
sides thereof" and should be deleted. See claim 16
likewise.
In claim 18, lines 4 and 5 "holes" lacks
positive antecedent basis and it is unclear as to
which "holes" are implied. Note that the web does
not necessarily have holes therein.
Looking first at appellants’ use of the word "holes" in
claim 18, the word "holes" suggests openings in the form of
discrete perforations or apertures extending through a member.
While claim 18 implies that the interstitial spaces or pores
of
the filter element are in the form of "holes," there is
nothing in the claims requiring that such spaces or pores be
of any particular form. Accordingly, it is unclear as to
precisely what physical structure the terminology "holes of
2In the final rejection, numerous additional reasons were
listed by the examiner in support of this rejection. However,
the examiner now bases the § 112 rejection only on those
reasons listed on page 3 of the answer. See page 9 of the
answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007