Appeal No. 1999-0718
Application 08/594,149
the array and thus merely angled with respect to said flat
surface, not from said flat surface.
Dependent claim 2 sets forth the further requirement
that the pointed projections be “replaceably retained in said
array” (emphasis added). It is unclear from this recitation
as to whether the pointed projections and array as a whole are
replaceably retained on the handhold, as is described in
appel- lant’s specification, or if the individual pointed
projections are in fact each releasably retained in the array,
a prospect for which we find no support in appellant’s speci-
fication.
Given the foregoing, under the provisions of 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground of rejection
against appellant’s claims 1 through 6:
Claims 1 through 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, for the reasons explained above, as
being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007