Appeal No. 2000-1890
Application 08/828,297
the appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that claim 10 satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
We are also of the view that the evidence relied upon supports
the rejection of claims 1-12. We reach the opposite conclusion
with respect to claims 13-19 and 21-24. Accordingly, we affirm-
in-part.
With respect to the rejection of claim 10 under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, the examiner states that
“[t]he phrase ‘wherein one or more added mass sections’ lacks
proper antecedent basis, since claim 1 does not recite any ‘added
mass sections’” [answer, page 4]. Appellant argues that claim 10
clearly recites that the one or more added mass sections are in
addition to the structures recited in claim 1 [brief, page 4].
The examiner simply repeats the assertion of indefiniteness
[answer, page 6].
Although we are of the view that claim 10 could be
drafted in better form, we agree with appellant that there is no
lack of antecedent basis in claim 10 because the claimed “one or
more added mass sections” should be interpreted as being present
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007