Appeal No. 1999-2433
Application No. 08/862,361
claim 37 and claims 17 through 22, 30 through 32, 35, 38 and
39 which depend therefrom run afoul of the requirements of 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, which specifies that the
claims presented must particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicants regard as their
invention.
Given the foregoing, under the provisions of 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground of rejection
against appellants’ claims 17 through 22, 30 through 32, 35
and 37 through 39:
Claims 17 through 22, 30 through 32, 35 and 37 through 39
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the
reasons explained above, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim that which
appellants regard as their invention. As a further point, we
also note that claim 19 which specifies that the sheet
according to claim 37 is
“one-ply” is indefinite since it is entirely inconsistent with
the “two-ply sheet” defined in claim 37. In claim 21, the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007