Appeal No. 2000-0093
Application No. 08/874,812
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
This rejection rests on the examiner’s determination that claim 13, and claims 14
through 19 and 22 through 25 which depend therefrom, are indefinite because “[i]n
claim 13, ninth line from the last, the meaning of ‘said subdividing planes that interfere
with interior surfaces’ is not clear” (final rejection, page 2).
The appellants concede that the problematic word “interfere” (instead of the
intended word “interface”) appears in this limitation as the result of a typographical
error, but nevertheless insist that the limitation is not indefinite since “[e]ach subdividing
plane does interfere or intersect with interior surfaces” (brief, page 4).
The word “interfere,” however, is not synonymous with “intersect” or “interface,”
and does not clearly or accurately set forth the disclosed relationship between
the subdividing planes and the interior surfaces. We shall therefore sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 13 through 19 and 22
through 25.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
Both of the Tamura references pertain to the manufacture of consumable
investment patterns.
capacity, there is no excuse for not positively including the reference in the statement of the rejection. In
re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970) and MPEP § 706.02(j).
Accordingly, in reviewing the § 103(a) rejection, we have not considered any reference other than the
Tamura references cited in the statement of the rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007