Appeal No. 2000-1161
Application No. 09/318,354
because the nomenclature of first, second, and third actuators
in claims 36 and 37 is inconsistent with the nomenclature in
claims 22, 23, and 29. We note that appellants have not
directly responded to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. However, we note from Exhibits 2 and 3
attached to the appellants’ brief that the nomenclature in
claims 22 and 36 and corresponding dependent claims is
different from each other. The nomenclature is, however,
consistent in claims 22, 23, and 29 within themselves, and the
nomenclature used in claims 36 and 37 is consistent within
themselves. We observe that appellants can use different
ordinal nomenclature for the same elements in different
independent claims as long as it does not interfere with the
substance of the related claims. In this particular case, the
actuators are being called as first, second, and third
actuators, and the same actuators are designated differently
(e.g., first, third and second) in other unrelated claims
(Exhibits 2 and 3 of brief). Therefore, we are of the view
that the examiner has not presented a prima facie case of a
indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, of claims 36 and 37. However, we reach a different
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007