Appeal No. 1999-0346 Page 4
Application No. 08/760,683
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced
by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper
No. 9, mailed February 9, 1998) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 12, mailed July 21, 1998) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' brief for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
The indefiniteness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
In the final rejection (p. 2), the examiner rejected
claim 5 as being indefinite for the following two reasons.
One, it was not clear exactly which elastic member was being
referenced on the last line of claim 5. Two, it was not clear
exactly what is meant by "along the entire length."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007