Appeal No. 1995-1703
Application 07/897,304
first paragraph, rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 15 and 18
through 21 as being based on a specification which does not
provide an adequate written description of the claimed
invention.
As for the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 through 15 and 18 through 21, the examiner
argues that these claims fail to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter the appellants regard as
the invention because
[t]he scope of the subject matter mentioned in the
above objection under the first paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112 [is] not at all clear for the reasons
expressed therein, which were deemed to render these
claims ambiguous. Additionally the phrase “the
outer tubing” twice [recited] in claim 1 (Amended)
was noted to not find antecedent basis [main answer,
page 6].
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007