Appeal No. 2001-1570
Application No. 09/081,393
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 21-30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Boutaghou.
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference
to the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed October 19, 2000) for the
Examiner’s reasoning and the appeal brief (Paper No. 18, filed
October 6, 2000) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
With respect to the rejection of claim 27 under the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, Appellant asserts that the term
“pivot pin” is merely a typographical error and was intended to
refer to the previously recited “pivot point” (brief, page 11).
The Examiner agrees with Appellant’s position and states that an
amendment to correct “pin” to “point” would remove the rejection3
(answer, page 5). Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of
claim 27 is sustained pro forma.
3 Appellant’s amendments (paper No. 11, filed April 10, 2000 and Paper
No. 14, filed May 26, 2000) that included changes to claim 27 to correct this
typographical error, were denied entry by the Examiner. Additionally, the
Examiner has withdrawn the rejection with respect to “the lever arm” based on
Appellant’s argument asserting that the claim recites “wherein a lever arm is
attached to the pivot point” and provides antecedent basis for “the lever
arm.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007