Appeal No. 2001-1280
Application No. 07/977,163
for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner
with regard to the merits of these rejections.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
With reference to the claims as presented in Paper No. 19,
we note the following informalities which, while not of a nature
to render the claims indefinite, are deserving of correction in
the event of further prosecution.6
In claim 11, line 4, "drivers" should be "driver's." In
claim 11, line 19, "reflector" should be deleted for consistency
with earlier terminology (line 6). In claim 11, line 44, "the"
should be inserted before "driver."
In claim 14, line 5, it appears that "two said" should be
"said two."
6 In this decision, any references to line numbers of claims are with
respect to each of the claims themselves (i.e., the first line of any claim
would be denoted line 1, etc.), not the line number of the page on which the
claim appears.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007