Appeal No. 2001-1284 Page 9
Application No. 08/792,765
bounds of the claimed invention with the precision required by
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See In re Hammack,
supra.
The appellant's argument (brief, p. 11) that "the term
'quick plunge' is sufficiently defined by the preceding claim
language" is unpersuasive since the preceding claim language does
not provide sufficient guidelines that would enable one skilled
in the art to ascertain what is meant by "quick plunge."
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 17, 20 to 22, 28 and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed with respect to
claims 28 and 29 and reversed with respect to claims 1 to 17 and
20 to 22.
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 3, 5 to 23,
28 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007