Appeal No. 1998-1524 Page 6
Application No. 08/355,926
insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the second
wavelength" in line 10 of claim 11. The examiner has
suggested changing "the second wavelength" to "a second
wavelength" to overcome this rejection.
The appellants did not contest this rejection (brief, p.
9) since the appellants believed that this rejection was
overcome by the amendment to claim 11 that was entered after
the final rejection. However, the examiner maintained this
rejection since the limitation "the second wavelength" in line
10 of claim 11 was not changed (answer, pp. 2-3 and 4).
Since the appellants have not contested the examiner's
determination that claims 11 and 14 are indefinite, we are
constrained to sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, because the appellants have not pointed out
how the examiner erred in rejecting those claims.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6
through 11 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007