Appeal No. 1997-1506 Page 4
Application No. 08/442,413
3. Claims 6 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellants regard as the invention.
4. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Rosenbaum.
Reference is made to the appellants' brief (Paper No. 12)
and the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13) for the respective
positions of the appellants and the examiner with regard to
the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Indefiniteness Rejection
In rejecting claims 6 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the examiner's position is that “the lever
element” lacks antecedent basis. The appellants do not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007