Appeal No. 1999-2101 Page 4
Application No. 08/929,012
as it is received, the marker providing a set of machine readable marker instructions that
defines the contour of the pieces, arranges them relative to one another as they are to be
cut from one or more bites to optimize usage of the material, and “provides a specific
length value for each bite of sheet material to avoid partial cutting of the individual pattern
pieces on each bite of sheet material.” The claim further recites a carriage assembly for
moving a cutting tool over a work table upon which the material is spread, the carriage
assembly including a coupling mechanism for advancing successive bites of the material
over the work surface, a vacuum source for holding the sheet against the surface, and a
controller for converting the marker instructions into command signals to direct the carriage
assembly to advance successive bites of material onto the work surface “in accordance
with said specific length values” and to direct the movement of the carriage assembly and
the cutting tool to cut the individual pattern pieces from the material.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 15-21 as being indefinite, citing four items in
1
claims 15, 17, 19 and 20 as “some noted examples” (Answer, pages 4 and 5). The
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to set out and circumscribe a
1The use of the term “examples” would imply that there are other points of
indefiniteness which are not described in the rejection. This, of course, would not be in
accordance with the goal to “clearly articulate” the rejection that is set forth in Section 706
of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. We have considered the “examples” set
forth by the examiner to be the full extent of the indefiniteness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007