Appeal No. 2000-0533
Application No. 08/821,508
112. See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA
1971).
For the foregoing reasons, claims 38 and 60 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite
for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellants regard as the invention. This
is a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
Next we turn to the examiner's rejection of claims 33,
36-39, 42-45 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Takikawa, McIntosh and Currie. Normally,
when a claim is held to be indefinite, a determination as to
patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not made. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962) and
In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA
1970). However, in this instance, we consider it to be
desirable to avoid the inefficiency of piecemeal appellate
review. See Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App.
1984). In reviewing the examiner's obviousness rejections, we
have interpreted claim 38 such that the step of flaring
further comprises the step of "bending . . ." recited in claim
38. We have also interpreted the bending step of claim 60 as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007