Appeal No. 2001-1343
Application No. 08/965,818
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims
95 through 98
The examiner considers claim 95, and claims 96 through 98
which depend therefrom, to be indefinite because “[i]n claim
95, line 5, ’second end’ is not understood since a ’first end’
has not been previously set forth. Note also that ’the ...
second end’ lacks antecedent basis” (answer, page 4). As the
appellant (see page 3 in the brief) has not disputed the
examiner’s assessment of indefiniteness, we shall summarily
sustain this rejection.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims
77 through 112
This rejection rests on the examiner’s determination that
the appellant’s specification fails to comply with the written
description requirement in that “[t]he following constitutes
new matter: in claims 77, 91, 99, ’for rotation which can
structural relationships. Upon reconsideration (see pages 2
and 4 in the answer), the examiner has withdrawn this
rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007