Appeal No. 1997-4188
Application No. 08/373,528
Claims 1, 3, 5 through 7, 10 through 15, and 28 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite. We incorporate herein our above analysis of claims 1
and 15 relative to the indefiniteness therein. The following
additional matters also raise issues of indefiniteness. The
preamble “fuel tank” in each of dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 7, 10
through 14, and 28 is not consistent with the preamble “fuel
tank, fuel pump arrangement” of parent claims 1 and 15. The
preamble of claims 5, 28, and 12 seems to clearly indicate that
these claims are drawn to a fuel tank (fuel pump arrangement) per
se; however, the express inclusion of the “engine” in these
claims is inconsistent with the above understanding of the scope
of the claims since it appears that they may be drawn to the
combination of a fuel tank, fuel pump arrangement and an internal
combustion engine. The scope of claims 11 and 12 is
indeterminate in light of the recitation of the “motorcycle”.
Additionally, as to claim 15, line 3, the reference to “said
upper wall portion” is ambiguous in meaning since antecedent
basis for an upper wall portion is not present in claim 15.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007