Appeal No. 1999-1761
Application No. 08/889,872
The indefiniteness rejection
We reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
In the examiner’s opinion (answer, page 4), the same
language of claim 1 discussed above in the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is imprecise. We disagree.
As we see it, the language at issue in this rejection,
when read in light of the disclosure in appellant’s
application (in particular, those portions of the
specification referenced above relative to the new matter
rejection) reveal that the claim language is precise and
definite in meaning. Consistent with our earlier analysis,
the release tabs do move independently of the button teeth
when they are manually forced together toward the end surfaces
48.
The anticipation rejection
We reverse the rejection of claims 1 through 3 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Boike.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007