Appeal No. 98-2456
Application No. 08/748,158
Claims 10, 14, 23, 24, 27 and 28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that
which appellant regards as his invention. In this regard, it
is the examiner’s position that
[t]he structure that applicant is attempting to
claim by the manufacturing process steps that have
been included in the claims is unclear. What
structural limitations are being claimed? Are there
structural differences between an injection molded
device and one that is injection molded without a
slide? If so what are they? [final rejection, page
2).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full explanation of
this rejection and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellant, we refer to pages 2 and 3 of the final
rejection (Paper No. 8, mailed March 19, 1997), pages 2
through 4 of the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13, mailed
January 13, 1998), appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12, filed
November 28, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 14, filed March
16, 1998) for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007