Appeal No. 98-2783
Application 08/450,009
wound in a first direction and a second
opposite direction (answer, page 3).
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full position on
the above-noted rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellants regarding those rejections, we make
reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 17, mailed July 15,
1997) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 16, filed May 13, 1997) for
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants’ specification and claims, to the
applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we have made the determinations which follow.
The first rejection for our review is that of claims 1
through 10 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007