Appeal No. 2000-0572
Application 08/687,643
The explanation of this rejection (see page 3 in the
answer) indicates that the examiner considers claims 1 through
12 to be indefinite due to (1) an unclear use of the terms
“vertical” in claim 1 and “successively” in claim 2, (2)
redundant recitations of the transmitter and receiver in
claims 2 through 11, and (3) inconsistencies between claims 3
through 10 and the drawings. The appellants (see pages 12 and
13 in the main brief) dispute the examiner’s position only to
the extent of arguing that the term “vertical” in claim 1 is
sufficiently clear based on the examiner’s assumption (with
which the appellants agree) that it means --perpendicular--.
The examiner, however, would not find it necessary to make
such a strained interpretation if the use of “vertical” in
claim 1 made sense. It does not. In this light,
and since the appellants have not challenged the rest of the
examiner’s reasoning, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 12.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
As framed by the appellants, the dispositive issue with
respect to the prior art rejections is whether the references
respectively applied in each rejection teach or would have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007