Appeal No. 2000-0504
Application 08/799,898
Likewise, with respect to the rejection of claims 6
through 9 as unpatentable over Riccio in view of Mahannah and
claim 10 rejected as unpatentable over Riccio in view of
Jones, here again the open-ended language of claim 1, does not
preclude the presence of additional arms.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 11 through 17, we
have determined that these claims are so indefinite as to
prevent us from being able to apply the prior art thereto. In
the second line of claim 11, as it appears in the appendix to
the examiner’s answer, we note the presence of the expression
“said surface for mounting.” No such surface for mounting an
object has been previously recited in the claim. In line 4 of
claim 11, we note the presence of the expression “the mounting
means.” This expression also lacks antecedent basis in
independent claim 11. In claim 12, in the second line we note
the expression “the fixed position.” Similarly, this
expression has no antecedent basis in
claims 11 or 12. In lines 3 and 4 of claim 14 as it appears
in
the appendix to appellant’s brief, we find no antecedent basis
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007