Appeal No. 97-4252 Page 5
Application No. 08/226,520
The indefiniteness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 15 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner determined (final rejection, pp. 2-3) that
the claims under appeal were indefinite because
[i]t is unclear what specific structure comprises the
lighting control means. It is unclear from the
specification and/or drawings how the lighting control
means selectively lights individual respective one of the
luminous devices at predetermined discrete positions of
the luminous devices within a swing are [sic, arc].
The appellant contested (reply brief, pp. 7-8) the
examiner's determination that it was unclear how the lighting
control means selectively lights individual respective one of
the luminous devices at predetermined discrete positions of
the luminous devices within a swing arc. In fact, the
appellant believed that this issue mirrored the rejection made
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We agree with the appellant that the issue of how the
lighting control means selectively lights individual
respective one of the luminous devices at predetermined
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007