Appeal No. 1999-1480
Application No. 08/523,330
independent claims 52, 57, and 63 and dependent claim 66. In
accordance with appellant’s desires, claims 52-56 stand or
fall together, claims 57-62 stand or fall together, and claims
63-65 and 67-70 stand or fall together, and claim 66 stands or
fall on its own. Note, claim 65 stands or falls with claim
63, because appellant did not argue the claim separately.
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims , to the applied prior art references, and to the1
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of appealed
claim 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, which
rejection we understand to be based upon the written
1In regards to claims 55 and 59, line 2, “said handle”
has no proper antecedent basis. Upon review of appellant’s
proposed amendment on page 2 of the appeal brief, appellant
proposed to amend claims 55 and 59, line 2, by deleting the
word “handle” and substituting --spheroidal body--. As noted
by the examiner (answer, page 1), this amendment has not been
entered since it was not submitted in a separate paper from
the appeal brief. See MPEP § 1207.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007