Appeal No. 1999-2433
Application No. 08/862,361
reference to “the tracing paper technique” is ambiguous and
indefinite. What tracing paper technique? Regarding claim 38,
we note that there is no “ply whose thickness is nil,” but
only a ply that includes at least one area whose thickness is
nil.
As a further point, we also observe that there is a minor
inconsistency in independent claim 23 on appeal. The
recitation regarding “the thickness (e ) of the rest of the
1
sheet” in claim 23 should actually refer to ---the thickness
(e ) of the rest of the sheet---, as is made clear in the
t
specification, at page 7. We likewise note that the equation
on the top of page 8 of the specification relating to Figure 2
appears to be in error.
Turning to the examiner's rejections of appealed claims
17 through 22, 30 through 32, 35 and 37 through 39 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103, we emphasis again that these
claims contain language which renders the subject matter
thereof indefinite. Accordingly, we find that it is not
reasonably possible to apply the prior art relied upon by the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007