Appeal No. 97-1754 Application 08/462,133 lack of a strict antecedent. Finally, as to the examiner’s contention that lines 9 and 37 of claim 3 are confusing, appellants have not disputed the examiner’s position in this regard. Rather, appellants merely state on page 1 of the reply brief that typographical errors appear in these lines, and that correction thereof would render the meaning of the claim clear. Since appellants have not disputed the examiner’s position with respect to lines 9 and 37, we will summarily sustain the examiner’s position that the meaning of lines 9 and 37 in claim 3 is not clear. We now turn our attention to our own difficulties in understanding the meaning of claims 2 and 3. Considering first claim 2, lines 19-23 set forth “article group transfer means . . . for advancement downstream” and lines 23-28 set forth “means for transferring . . . to said outbound accumulator means.” In that the disclosed reciprocating transfer head 24 appears to perform both the function called for in the “article group transfer means” limitation and the function called for in the “means for transferring” limitation, it is 12Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007