Appeal No. 97-2535
Application 08/129,108
the invention defined in claim 9 as required in Fine, 837 F.2d at 1074, 5 USPQ2d at 1598.
Accordingly, we must reverse the § 103 rejections of appealed claims 9, 10, 14/9, 14/10, 15/14/9,
15/14/10, 17/9, 17/10, 18/9 and 18/10.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), the following new grounds of rejection are
entered against claims 9, 10 and 14 through 24:
1. Claims 9, 10, 14/9, 14/10, 15/14/9, 15/14/10, 16, 17/9, 17/10, 18/9, 18/10 and 19
through 24 are rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 as being based on a specification which, as filed, does not satisfy the description requirement in
that paragraph.
2. Claims 10, 14/10, 15/14/10, 17/10, 18/10, and 19 through 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 ¶ 2 as being indefinite and hence failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which appellants regards as their invention.
Considering first the new rejection under the first paragraph of § 112, all of the independent
claims 9, 16 and 19 recite that the mesh cage is permanently attached to the same plate on which the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007