Appeal No. 1999-0866
Application No. 08/742,704
examiner relies upon Brighton as to claims 12 through 14, 17
through 23, 35, 36, 38 and 55, adding Wolf as to claims 15 and
37, adding Ozaki to Brighton as to claims 15 and 16 and adding
Ohshima to the combination of Brighton and Wolf as to claim
16.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and the answer.
OPINION
Because we find independent claim 12 indefinite within 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we pro forma reverse the art
rejections of the claims on appeal. Speculation and
conjecture must be utilized by us and by the artisan inasmuch
as the claims on appeal do not accurately reflect what the
disclosed invention is. Note In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862,
134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).1
NEW REJECTION WITHIN 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 12 through 23, 35 through 38 and 55 are rejected
1The reversal of the outstanding art rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 103 should not necessarily be construed as a
reversal of these rejections on the merits. The prior art
relied upon by the examiner may well be pertinent to properly
definite claims within 35 U.S.C. § 112 as a whole.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007