Appeal No. 2001-1355
Application No. 09/110,348
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims
1 through 5, 7 and 8
We shall summarily sustain this rejection inasmuch as the
appellant has not challenged the examiner’s contention that
claims 1 through 5, 7 and 8 are indefinite due to a lack of
proper antecedent basis for the term “the housing” in parent
claim 1.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph (written
description), rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7 through 9 and
11
This rejection rests on the examiner’s determination that
“[r]egarding claims 1 and 9, the originally filed
specification failed to disclose a removable support wall and
a top/dome removable with the support wall” (answer, page 3).
As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites a cooling
apparatus comprising, inter alia, a removable support wall
disposed on the rim of the housing means and a top disposed on
the support wall and removable with the support wall for
adding liquid cooling medium to the housing (means).
Independent claim 9, which recites a dome instead of a top,
contains similar limitations.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007