Appeal No. 2001-2543
Application No. 09/225,892
Claims 1 through 7 and 21 through 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which
appellants regard as their invention. In the examiner's view,
the language in independent claims 1 and 21 regarding the
attachment of the weight member "at a position on said cylinder
where the person cannot remove said weight member while the
cylinder is attached to the person" renders the claims indefinite
because the physical abilities and limitations from one person to
another may greatly vary.
In addition to the foregoing rejection, the appealed claims
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows:
a) claims 1 and 21 as being obvious over Finnern; and
b) claims 2 through 6 and 22 through 24 as being obvious
over Finnern in view of Eylander.1
1 The rejection of claims 1 through 7 and 21 through 25 in
the final rejection based on double patenting has been withdrawn
by the examiner in light of the amendments made by appellants to
claims 1 and 21 in Paper No. 9 and the terminal disclaimer filed
July 31, 2000 (Paper No. 12). See the advisory action mailed
August 18, 2000 (Paper No. 13).
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007