Appeal No. 1999-1535 Page 5
Application No. 08/752,220
We sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 30 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that claim 29 was
indefinite since it was dependent on itself and that claim 30
was indefinite since it was dependent on canceled claim 11.
The appellants responded to this rejection (reply brief,
pp. 1-2) by stating that the examiner is correct and
requesting leave to amend these claims to change the
dependency of claim 29 from claim 29 to claim 25 and to change
the dependency of claim 30 from claim 11 to claim 29 to
overcome this rejection.
Since the appellants have not contested this rejection,
we summarily sustain the rejection of claims 29 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.3
3In view of decision below with regard to the rejection
of claims 19 through 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we believe it
would be appropriate for the examiner to permit the appellants
to amend claims 29 and 30 to overcome the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. For purposes of reviewing the
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007