Appeal No. 1998-1782 Page 5
Application No. 08/472,332
We sustain the rejection of claims 4 through 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 4) that claims 4
through 14 were indefinite because "it is not clear how the
gap can be formed between the face member, the back member,
and the side wall" as recited in lines 12-13 of claim 4.
The appellant did not contest this rejection (see brief,
pp. 4-5). Instead, the appellant requests sufficient time to
amend claim 4 with language to resolve this issue.
Since the appellant has not contested the examiner's
determination that claims 4 through 14 are indefinite, we are
constrained to sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, because the appellant has not pointed out
how the examiner erred in rejecting those claims.
The double patenting rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under the
judicially created doctrine of double patenting.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007