Appeal No. 2000-1161
Application No. 09/318,354
conclusion regarding claim 38. The examiner has clearly set
forth the problem with claim 38 at page 5 of the examiner’s
answer. We find that there is a reasonable place for
confusion or indefiniteness in the recited language of claim
38, as is evident from a plain reading of the claim. We again
note that appellants have not responded to this rejection.
Therefore, we pro forma sustain the rejection of claim 38
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
The Rejection of under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner has rejected claims 1-13, 15, 16, and 21-38
(final rejection at pages 4-14 and answer at pages 5-13) over
Krebs and Lieber. Appellants argue, brief at page 11, that:
There is no reason for a person of ordinary skill in
the art to modify the musical instrument disclosed
in the patent to Krebs to have a first plurality of
actuators extend in a first direction and a second
plurality of actuators extend in a second direction
from string posts having central axes disposed in
one plane. This is because the patent to Lieber
does not disclose a first plurality of actuators
which extend in a first direction and a second
plurality of actuators which extend in a second
direction from string posts having central axes
disposed in one plane.
The examiner asserts (answer at page 7) that:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007