Appeal No. 98-0516
Application No. 08/400,328
The rejections are explained in the Paper No. 17 (the
final rejection).
The arguments of the appellants in opposition to the
positions taken by the examiner are set forth in the Revised
Brief and the Reply Brief.
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, we have carefully assessed the claims, the prior art
applied against the claims, and the respective views of the
examiner and the appellants as set forth in the Answer and the
Briefs. The determinations we have made and the reasoning
behind them are set forth below.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
Although some changes have been made to the claims in
response to the examiner’s rejection on the grounds of
indefiniteness, as we understand the situation one problem of
a non-typographical nature remains uncorrected. That is the
presence in claim 10 of the phrase “said body compartments,”
which has no proper antecedent basis. While the appellants
have offered to amend the claim to rectify this problem
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007