Appeal No. 2001-1581 Page 6
Application No. 08/833,172
say that it is made from a piece of the first alternative for R. It is just a brand new
alternative. Appellants, in an attempt to make the claim seem definite, are
reading into the claim something that isn’t there.” We agree.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. As set forth supra, claims 6, 7 and 12-14
will fall together with claim 1.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
)
Sherman D. Winters )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Donald E. Adams )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Eric Grimes )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007