Appeal No. 2000-1337 Application No. 08/955,002 of the underlying disclosure. The examiner’s criticism of the recitations of the “primary air flow passage” (claims 1, 6 and 9) and the “secondary air flow passage” (claims 1, 6 and 9) as being “intangibles” is also unfounded. In the context of the claimed cooktop burner, these air flow passages are simple, straightforward and readily understood structural features. Moreover, that these passageways might share their delimiting structure with one another and/or other elements of the burner does not pose any indefiniteness problem. Finally, the observations in the last paragraph of the examiner’s explanation pertain to the adequacy of the disclosure rather than the definiteness of the claimed subject matter, and thus have no particular relevance to the rejection at hand. To the extent that there is a problem with the disclosure, the examiner is free to deal with it via an appropriate objection and/or rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007