Appeal No. 2002-0933
Application No. 09/325,944
Examining Corps. See, for example, In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d
1395, 1403, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971) and In re Mindick,
371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967). Accordingly,
we make no further comment regarding the objections made by the
examiner.
We turn now to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, noting that the
examiner has urged that the phrase "operatively associated with"
in claims 1 and 9 on appeal is unclear and does not provide a
positive structural relationship between the first end of the
conduit and the output end of the drive member, thereby rendering
independent claims 1 and 9, and the claims which depend
therefrom, indefinite. On page 9 of the brief, appellant argues
that the language of claims 1 and 9 is entirely clear,
particularly when understood in the context of the
specification's description of a known remote afterloader and
deployment of the flexible drive member thereof through the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007