Appeal No. 2001-2353
Application No. 09/411,370
of the push cap (19) and the eraser support member as set forth
in claim 3. Thus, the examiner concludes that because claims 2
and 3 are directed to a non-elected species, they cannot, by
definition, read on the elected embodiment and are, therefore,
indefinite.
A careful review of the specification appears to refute the
examiner's assertion that the subject matter of claim 2 is
limited to the embodiment of Figure 10. More particularly,
page 18, lines 23-25, of the specification expressly state that
the barrels (1) of the pencils "shown in Figs. 8, 9 and 11 may be
provided in their back ends with recesses similar to the recesses
1b shown in Fig. 10." Thus, the embodiment of Figure 11 may be
provided with such recesses or "slits" as they are termed in
claim 2 on appeal. As for claim 3, we see no reason why this
claim is not readable on the elected species of Figure 11 and the
examiner has provided none. The push cap (19) seen in Fig. 11 is
"detachably fitted in a rear portion of the support member" (17)
and in order to prevent disengagement of the support member (17)
and the adapter (3) each time the eraser is to be used, logic
would dictate that the fit between the push cap and the support
member would be looser than that between the support member and
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007