Appeal No. 1999-0368
Application 08/636,033
Beatty declaration.
Based on the evidence before us, namely, the Packer
reference and the declaration of co-inventor Scott A. Beatty,
the standing anticipation rejection cannot be sustained. In a
nutshell, the silence in the Packer reference regarding the
relationship between the knuckle thereof and present day AAR
standards, and undisputed statements in the Beatty declaration
in this regard, necessitate reversal of the examiner’s
anticipation rejection.
New rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being vague and indefinite.
The purpose of the requirement stated in the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is to provide those who would
endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area
circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with the adequate
notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007