Appeal No. 1998-3026
Application No. 08/531,613
place the facts upon which the anticipation rejection is based into the record. Any future
Examiner’s Answer in the instant case, should it include a rejection over the prior art, must
compare the rejected claims feature by feature with the prior art applied.
New Ground of Rejection -- 37 CFR 1.196(b)
We enter the following new ground of rejection against the claims in accordance
with 37 CFR § 1.196(b): Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicants regard as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “small holes provided in a surface of said synthetic resin over said
alignment notches so that the alignment pins inserted into said alignment notches exclude
said injected synthetic resin from said small holes.” First, we note that the recitation “said
injected synthetic resin” lacks proper antecedent in the claim. However, in view of
appellants’ disclosure, there is a more significant problem with the above-quoted final
paragraph of claim 1.
Although claim 1 purports the apparatus of “a stator assembly,” the final paragraph
appears to make reference to manufacturing steps. In this regard, we also note a
reference to manufacturing steps, and structures not comprising a portion of the “stator
assembly,” elsewhere in the claim: “alignment notches provided on a surface of said yoke
for mating with alignment pins disposed in a mold...” (emphasis added). The mere fact
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007