Appeal No. 2000-0105
Application No. 08/573,247
Claims 23 to 25 stand finally rejected on the following
grounds:
(1) Unpatentable for failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph;
(2) Unpatentable over Anders in view of Maruyama, under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection
The bases for this rejection are stated on pages 4 and 5
of the examiner’s answer as follows:
In general, the claims are replete with instances
of unclear and indefinite claim language. For
instance, in claim 23, applicants claim determining
at least one characteristic variable from a group
consisting of two different variables, yet at the
end of the claim, applicants claim a specific type
of variable. This results in indefinite claim
language wherein it is not clear what applicant
intends to be the scope of patent protection
desired. This same problem is seen in claims 24 and
25, all instances of which must be corrected.
Further, on lines 3 and 4, it is not clear what is
meant by “a moment producing impulses”. Problems
similar to those cited above also occur in claims 24
and 25, all instances of which must be corrected.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007