Appeal No. 1999-2086
Application 08/692,062
term “coupled” is misdescriptive.
For the foregoing reasons claim 34 does not define the metes and bounds of the
invention with a reasonable degree of precision as required in In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). Dependent claims 35 through 40 are subject to the
same criticism since they incorporate the subject matter of claim 34.
The examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is reversed, and a new ground of
rejection has been entered against claims 34 through 40 pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR §
1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR §
1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197
(Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off. Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) provides that, “A new ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes
of judicial review.”
37 CFR § 1.196(b) also provides that the appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007