Appeal No. 1998-1735 Page 3
Application No. 08/339,980
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
Second Amended Brief (Paper No. 17) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, the applied prior art references, the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner, and the guidance provided by our
reviewing court. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The examiner has rejected claim 6 as being indefinite because the presence of a
semi-colon in line 6 and the misspelling of “from” as “form” in line 7 renders the claims
“confusing” (Answer, page 4). We regard these items as being inadvertent typographical
errors which, although worthy of correction, certainly do not rise to the level of causing the
claim to be indefinite. This rejection is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007