Appeal No. 2002-1992
Application 09/206,170
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 19 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention;
claims 1, 3, 6-9, 11-14 and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Chen in view of Grieger; and claims 2, 5, 10, 15
and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Chen in view
of Grieger and Schonauer ‘769.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections and, under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), introduce a new ground of
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 10-13, 17 and 18.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner argues that “optionally” in the appellants’
claims 19 and 20 renders the claims indefinite because it is
unclear whether or not the components following “optionally” are
present (answer, page 3).
The examiner has not pointed to any disclosure in the
appellants’ specification which indicates that the appellants
have given the term “optionally” any meaning other than its
ordinary meaning. See Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007