Appeal No. 1999-1036
Application No. 08/644,523
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellant regards as the invention.
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner’s full
commentary with regard to the above-noted rejection and the
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the rejection, we make reference to the
Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 14) and the Appellant’s Briefs
(Paper Nos. 13 and 15).
OPINION
It is the examiner’s position that the claims are
indefinite in that it is not clear from the claim language
whether they cover a shear reinforcement system or the
combination of a shear reinforcement system and a slab floor.
As the basis for this rejection, the examiner notes that
although the preamble of each of the independent claims states
that they are directed to “[a] shear reinforcement system for
embedding in a slab floor” (emphasis added), the body of the
claims positively recites the slab floor. For example, lines
3 and 4 of claim 1 recite “elongate shear reinforcement
members positioned transverse to a plane of a slab floor,” and
lines 7 and 8 recite “said at least one securing element
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007