Appeal No. 1999-0194
Application No. 08/436,626
Rejection (1)
In rejecting claims 20-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite, the examiner considers that it
is unclear whether these claims are method claims or apparatus
claims. In particular, the examiner contends that it is
unclear whether claims 20-26 include the method steps of claim
11 and whether claim 27 includes the method steps of claim 16.
Claim 20 is directed to an apparatus for practicing the
method of claim 11. The body of claim 20 informs the reader
that the claimed apparatus comprises a precast concrete
bridge-diaphragm having an end pocket for receiving concrete
or grout in the step of casting. Claim 27 is similar in the
sense that it is directed to an apparatus for practicing the
method of claim 16, the claimed apparatus having certain
structural properties spelled out in the body of the claim.
From our perspective, one of ordinary skill would have no
trouble in determining that these claims are directed to an
apparatus per se. The reference in the preamble of claims 20
and 27 to the methods of claims 11 and 16, respectively, is
merely a short-hand way of claim drafting to avoid rewriting
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007