Appeal No. 97-3195
Application 08/387,419
the main brief (page 23), we determine that portions of the
references have not been picked and chosen based only upon
appellant’s own teaching. Instead, as should be evident from our
discussion above, the rejection is soundly based upon suggestion
from the evidence of obviousness itself, viewed as a whole.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Under the authority of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), this panel of the
board introduces the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1 through 3, 6 through 10, and 15 through 17 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
In claim 1, “the periphery” (line 10), “the edge” (line 11),
and “the exterior portion” (line 19) of the bottom wall have no
antecedent basis in the claim. In claim 6 (dependent from claim
1), “the periphery” of the bottom wall (line 3) lacks an
antecedent basis. In claim 4, “its periphery” (lines 2 and 3),
referring to the bottom wall, and “the periphery” of the lower
surface (lines 5 and 6) each lack an antecedent basis. Claim 17
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007