Appeal No. 98-3404
Application 08/600,813
Looking specifically to independent claims 11 and 13, in addition to the ambiguities we have
noted above, we observe that there is no proper antecedent basis for “the handle attachment structure”
set forth in the last clause of each of these claims. If appellants are attempting to set forth that the
configuration of the handle attachment defined in claims 11 and 13, respectively, functionally permits the
user’s hand “to approach the elongated member in a horizontal plane...” (Claim 11) and “to encircle the
elongated member...” (Claim 12), then the claims should be so amended.
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground of rejection
against appellants’ claims 1 through 13:
Claims 1 through 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the reasons
explained above, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which
appellants regard as their invention.
Turning to the examiner's rejection of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), we
emphasize again that these claims contain unclear language which renders the subject matter thereof
indefinite for reasons stated supra as part of our new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second
paragraph. Accordingly, we find that it is not possible to apply the prior art relied upon by the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007