Appeal No. 98-1456 Page 5
Application No. 08/294,958
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 rejections
The examiner rejected claim 9 (Paper No. 9) under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.
Later, the examiner rejected claim 1 (Paper No. 12) under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.
The appellant submitted an amendment to claims 1 and 9 on
September 8, 1997 to overcome the above-noted rejections.
While the examiner noted that this amendment has been entered
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007