Appeal No. 2001-0913
Application No. 09/002,058
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over de Cristofaro
in view of Pedersen and Kasha.
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over de Cristofaro
in view of Pedersen and Dunham.
Reference is made to the final rejection (paper number 8), the briefs (paper numbers 18 and
21) and the answer (paper number 20) for the respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse all of the
rejections of record.
Turning first as we must to the indefiniteness rejection, the examiner indicates (final
rejection, page 8) that claims 27 and 34 are indefinite because “it is unclear what is meant by the
phrase ‘traditional instrument’ as recited in line 1 of claims 27 and 34,” and because of the presence
of “the recitation of ‘a traditional instrument’ having a ‘first body’ and a ‘second body’ in lines 1-3
of claim 27, and in lines 1-4 of claim 34.” According to the examiner (final rejection, page 8), “it is
unknown how the ‘instrument’ has two ‘bodies.’” Appellant argues (brief, page 24) that:
Claim 27 merely states that a traditional instrument has a second body of a
given depth greater than the first body. This is not complex or confusing. It is a
mere statement of fact. The claim does not state the same instrument has both
bodies. This is a preamble recitation and would be understood as such by one of
ordinary skill. Claims are directed to one of ordinary skill who would understand the
plain ordinary meaning of garden variety English. The claim states that the second
body of a traditional instrument has a given depth greater than the first body (which
is claimed in claim 1). The specification at page 11, line 23 to page 12, line 17,
explains in detail what is meant by traditional instrument. Claims are not to be read
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007