Appeal No. 2001-0436
Application No. 09/040,361
1970). Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Moriyama. We hasten to add that this is a
procedural reversal that is not based upon any evaluation of the
merits of the rejection, and does not preclude the examiner’s
advancement of a rejection predicated upon Moriyama against a
definite claim.
New Ground of Rejection
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the following new
rejection.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter sought to be patented. The
meaning of the word “under” in the requirement of claim 1 that
“said engine assembly comprises an engine unit and a transmission
unit which is disposed under said engine unit” is unclear when
the claim terminology is read in light of the supporting
specification and drawings. In addition, the requirement of
claim 1 that the transmission unit “forms a recess between an
upper portion of said engine unit and said transmission unit” is
unclear in that it is inaccurate.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007