Appeal No. 2000-0560
Application No. 08/578,636
briefs (Paper Nos. 26 and 28, respectively).
OPINION
In reaching our decision on the issues raised in this
appeal, this panel of the Board has carefully considered the
appellant’s specification and claims, the applied patent and
the respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Turning first to the standing rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, it is our determination that claim 9
is indefinite, although for reasons that differ somewhat from
those set forth by the examiner.
The examiner considers claims 9, 10 and 12 through 15 to
be indefinite because “[s]ufficient structural relationships
of the various elements have not been provided. The numerous
‘adapted to . . .’ recitations do not provide positive
structure” (answer, page 3). The appellant, on the other
hand, argues that “[t]he fact that some of the structural
relationships between these features are defined by how the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007