Appeal No. 2001-2563
Application No. 08/814,757
We cannot sustain any of the examiner’s rejections on
appeal. Our reasoning in support of this conclusion appears
below.
The first, second, and third rejections
We have considered all claims specifically addressed by the
examiner in the body of the first, second, and third rejections,
i.e., claims 12, 26, 51, 72, and 73. The major focus of the
examiner’s concern in these rejections appears to be directed to
the matter of the recited at least one retainer element with its
plurality of adjacent movable portions each defined by a pair of
slits (claim 12). In reviewing these lack of enablement,
indefiniteness, and lack of descriptive support rejections, we
have read the language of appellants’ claims in light of the
underlying disclosure. From that perspective, we readily
conclude that the language at issue is broad but definite in
meaning, descriptively supported by the underlying disclosure,
and enabled by the description found in appellants’ specification
and derived from the drawings. As to claim 26, and contrary to
the examiner’s point of view, we do not consider the overall
recitation therein as redundant or indefinite. Thus, each of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007