Appeal No. 97-0734 Page 6
Application No. 08/058,592
alternating wales, is inconsistent with the limitations
in independent claim 1 of a group of alternating wales.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 11) that claims 7 and 9
are not inconsistent with parent claim 1. We agree. In that
regard, we do not agree with the examiner that claim 1
requires grouped (i.e., contiguous) thinner wales or for that
matter that claim 1 requires grouped (i.e., contiguous)
thicker wales. In our opinion, claims 7 and 9 reasonably
apprise those of skill in the art of their scope.
Accordingly, claims 7 and 9 are definite under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007