Appeal No. 1999-1821 Page 6
Application No. 08/725,335
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 25, 26, 34
and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that claims 25 and
26 were indefinite since "said tapered means" lacks positive
antecedent basis in the claims. The examiner also determined
(answer, p. 4) that claims 34 and 39 were indefinite since it
is unclear how the inner surface of the first member
circumscribes the first member.
We agree with the appellant's position (brief, p. 6) that
the entered amendment after final obviated this rejection. In
that regard, we note that the phrase "said tapered means" in
claims 25 and 26 was amended to "said tapered element." In
addition, the phrase "the inner surface of the first member
substantially circumscribes the outer surface of said first
member" in claim 34 was amended to read "the inner surface of
the first member substantially circumscribes the outer surface
of said second member."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007