Appeal No. 2002-0234
Application No. 09/496,087
Rather than reiterate the details of the above-noted
rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
examiner and appellant regarding those rejections, we refer to
the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11, mailed June 29, 2001) and to
appellant's brief (Paper No. 10, filed April 9, 2001) and reply
brief (Paper No. 12, filed July 31, 2001) for a full exposition
thereof.
OPINION
After careful consideration of appellant's specification and
claims, the teachings of the applied prior art references and
each of the arguments and comments advanced by appellant and the
examiner, we have reached the determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the examiner
asserts that the subject matter of these claims is indefinite
because independent claims 1, 3 and 4 fail to set forth a
forklift structure (i.e., a mast, carriage moved by motive means,
etc.) thus rendering these claims incomplete. In addition, the
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007