Appeal No. 1999-0195
Application 08/507,424
mounted” to a carriage, as called for in claim 16, cannot at
the same time be accurately described as being mounted “for
substantially linear movement” relative to said carriage, as
called for in claim 14. Accordingly, we consider that claim1
16 is inaccurate and indefinite because it is inconsistent
with and contrary to the requirements of claim 14 from which
it depends.
Remand to the Examiner
This case is remanded to the examiner to determine
whether dependent claims 2-8, which depend from newly rejected
claim 1, should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Cone or under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Cone, either alone or further in view of
other prior art.
Summary
The examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 14-16 as being
unpatentable over Blunden in view of Cone is reversed.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), new rejections of claims 1
1We appreciate that our view in this regard may differ
from that of appellants. See, for example, page 8, last
paragraph, of the main brief.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007