Appeal No. 2001-0217
Application No. 09/186,741
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The examiner considers independent claim 27, and claims
28 and 29 which depend therefrom, to be indefinite in that
[a]s concerns claim 27, the phrases “said at
least two vertical support members”, in line 10, and
“and one of each being located on opposite sides of
an attachment orifice”, in lines 11-12, lack
antecedent basis because “at least one...vertical
support member”, in line 6, is being claimed,
therefore the claim is rendered vague and
indefinite. Furthermore, there are two periods
within the claim (i.e., lines 15 and 17) which is
improper [answer, page 4].
The appellant acknowledges that “[t]he Examiner is
correct” (brief, page 4), and proposes changes to claim 27 to
be made by examiner’s amendment in the event the claims are
found to contain
allowable subject matter. 2
2For the sake of consistency, the amendments to claim 27
proposed by the appellant should also include the deletion of
the words “being in the same plane.” Furthermore, the term
“said vertical support member” in claim 24 lacks a proper
antecedent basis and should be amended to read as – said
vertical support members–.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007