Appeal No. 2000-1473 Page 11
Application No. 08/765,169
Accordingly, we remand the application to determine if
the applicant has set forth an adequate disclosure as to what
structure described in the specification corresponds to the
"means for subjecting" clause of claim 1. If an adequate
disclosure has not been set forth, a rejection under the
second paragraph of section 112 should be made by the
examiner. If an adequate disclosure has been set forth, the
disclosed structure corresponding to the "means for
subjecting" clause of claim 1 should be identified by the
examiner.
In addition, we remand this application to the examiner
to determine if the lack of proper antecedent basis for "inlet
orifice" and "outlet orifice" in claim 1 renders claim 1
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 14 to 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
reversed. In addition, this application has been remanded to
the examiner for further action.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007