Appeal No. 2001-1473
Application 08/946,736
DISCUSSION
I. Claims 15 through 17, 19, 27 and 28
We shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 15, 16 and 28 as being unpatentable over
Christian, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims
17, 19 and 27 as being unpatentable over Christian in view of
Wiand. For the reasons expressed below, the scope of claim 15,
and claims 16, 17, 19, 27 and 28 which depend therefrom, is
indefinite. Accordingly, the prior art rejections thereof must
fall since they are necessarily based on speculative assumption
as to the meaning of the claims. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,
862-63, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). It should be understood,
however, that our decision in this regard is based solely on the
indefiniteness of the claimed subject matter, and does not
reflect on the adequacy of the prior art evidence applied in
support of the rejections.
II. Claims 29 and 30
Christian, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
drill sharpener which includes a housing 10, a timing tube
receptacle 12, a point sharpening receptacle 14, a point-
splitting receptacle 16, an electric motor housing 18, a pair of
cutting wheels 20, 22 supported on the output shaft and hub of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007