Appeal No. 2000-1651
Application No. 08/871,923
evident how Burke's supports are connected end-to-end, and it
does not appear that they could use the bolt-and-eye system
disclosed by Bergquist. For these reasons, we do not consider
that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to
modify Bergquist in view of Burke.
Rejection Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claims 20, 31 and 32 are
rejected for failing to comply with the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, for the following reasons:
(A) Claim 20 is indefinite in that the term "support" in line
1 has no antecedent basis.
(B) In claim 31, appellant recites in lines 1 and 2 "The
method of supporting electrical cable comprising: preparing a
support [etc.]," and then recites in line 21 "the method
comprising:" These two recitations of "method comprising"
render the claim indefinite in that it is not clear whether
the claimed method
includes the step of preparing a support, or only the steps of
laying cable and inserting cable (lines 22 to 27).
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 to 32 is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007