Appeal No. 99-0629 Page 4
Application No. 08/778,059
the final rejection (Paper No. 6, mailed August 7, 1997) and
the examiner's answer (Paper No. 9, mailed March 18, 1998),
while the complete statement of the appellant's argument can
be found in the brief (Paper No. 8, filed December 8, 1997).
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Rejection 1
The examiner considers claims 17 through 27 to be
indefinite because the term "trigger" used in the claims
cannot be found in the appellant's specification. Further,
apparently with regard to claims 17 through 24, the examiner
asserts:
Appellant argues that the phrase "trigger means" may
include a single trigger that operates plural
discharge chambers. No support can be found in the
specification for this structure. In the
specification, each discharge means is connected to
only one respective chamber such that actuation of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007