Appeal No. 98-2158 Page 8
Application No. 08/610,279
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected 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. In claim 9 the appellant
has set forth a pair of longitudinal holes and pins as though
they were entirely separate elements when in fact they are a
part of the "hole means" and "pin means" previously set forth
in parent claim 8. Similarly, in claim 15 the appellant in
line 2 sets forth "adjacent ends" as though they were entirely
separate elements when in fact they are the "engaging
transverse ends" previously set forth in parent claim 12.
In summary:
The examiner's rejections are all reversed.
A new rejection of claims 9 and 15 has been made under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by
final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997),
1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21,
1997)). 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b) provides that, “A new ground of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007