Appeal No. 1999-2812 Page 11
Application No. 08/724,049
claim 22 is further defining the step of connecting drive
means to the first bar recited in parent claim 21.
V. The examiner found that the phrase "would logs" in
claim 25 was vague and indefinite. The examiner inquired if
the phrase should read -- wound logs --.
In response to this rejection, the appellants noted that
the examiner was correct that the claimed contained a
typographical error in the "would" should be "wound."
It is our view that this clear typographical error does
not constitute indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, since the correction thereto would have been
understood by one skilled in the art.
Summary
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 16 to 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is affirmed.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007