Appeal No. 2000-0693
Application 08/845,282
being cured, it is at best speculative that the resulting
polytetrafluoroethylene, when cured, would have alternating
recessed and protruded
portions, as called for in the claims. In this regard,
appellant’s argument (reply brief, page 4) that “the PTFE tape
would soften and form a smooth substantially continuous
thickness between the mandrel and outer layer of the fishing
rod during curing” is reasonable and has not been adequately
addressed by the examiner.
In light of the above, the standing § 103 rejection of
independent claims 4, 8, 10, 17 and 21, as well as claims 9-
15, 18, 19 and 22-57 that depend therefrom, shall not be
sustained.
Turning to claim 59, in that this claim depends from
canceled claim 20, its metes and bounds cannot be determined.
When a claim’s metes and bounds cannot be determined, it
should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
and not over the prior art. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862,
134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we are
constrained to reverse the standing § 103 rejection of claim
59. It should be understood, however, that our reversal of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007