Appeal No. 2000-2116 Page 3
Application No. 09/246,460
No. 18) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 16) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 19) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 112
The examiner’s rejection is, in its entirety, “[r]e claims 58 and 88, it is not
understood if the feedgate moves in a rectilinear direction, in a curvilinear direction or in
what direction?” (Answer, page 3). Apparently, it is the examiner’s view that claims 58 and
88 are indefinite because they do not describe, by structure or otherwise, the direction the
feedgate moves between the various operating positions recited therein. The appellants
argue in rebuttal that the invention recited in the claims is fully disclosed in the
specification, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the invention
from the language of the claims as read in the context of the specification.
We agree with the appellants. While the recitations of the invention as set forth in
claims 58 and 88 might be considered to be broad, the claims are not indefinite. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007