Appeal No. 2001-1280
Application No. 07/977,163
In claim 15, lines 7-8, "plane mirror surface" should be
changed to "plane mirror" to provide clear antecedent for "said
third plane mirror" in lines 9 and 12 of claim 15.
In claim 17, line 7, "supports" should be "support."
The indefiniteness rejection
The basis of the examiner's rejection of claim 17 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is that the phrase "said
second wedge-shaped support structure" in claim 17 lacks
antecedent basis (final rejection, page 2). In this regard, we
note that claim 17 does recite a "second support structure" in
line 4, but that second support structure is not positively
recited as being "wedge-shaped." Accordingly, we agree with the
examiner that "said second wedge-shaped support structure" lacks
antecedent basis in the claim, thereby raising uncertainty as to
what recited structure is intended thereby. As appellant has not
contested this rejection in either the brief or reply brief7, we
7 Appellant did attempt to address this rejection in Paper No. 34, filed
December 5, 1996, by proposing a new claim 18 to replace claim 17. However,
the examiner refused entry of this proposed amendment (Paper No. 35, mailed
November 18, 1997).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007