Appeal No. 1998-1454 Page 4
Application No. 08/422,840
3. Claims 1 through 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Schuitema.
Reference is made to the brief (Paper No. 12) and reply
brief (Paper No. 15) and the final rejection (Paper No. 5) and
answer (Paper No. 13) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner with regard to the merits of these
rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
Initially, we note that the claims are clearly directed
to a cranking device and not to the combination of a cranking
device and a winch. Thus, to the extent that the examiner's
comments on pages 5 and 6 of the answer suggest that the
claims are ambiguous in this regard, we do not agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007