Appeal No. 2002-0531 Page 8
Application No. 09/108,687
intermediate sections as indicated by 22'. This means that the height of the
intermediate section 22 is less than the height of the corresponding passage 16." (Id.)
Figure 1 of the specification, moreover, shows the arrangement of the intermediate
section 22, the removed length 22', and the passage 16. In light of the recitation, the
explanation, and the showing, we conclude that one skilled in the art would understand
that a part of the intermediate section 22 is removed to form the claimed "second air
chamber."
6. Front Wall
The examiner asserts, "there is no antecedent basis for 'the front wall'. . . ."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellants do not contest the merits of the rejection but
instead argue, "[a] proposed amendment is being submitted herewith to overcome the
rejection of the claim on this ground." (Appeal Br. at 7.) The proposed amendment,
however, "has not been entered." (Examiner's Answer at 2.)1 Therefore, we affirm the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 2 and 4-9.
B. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION
1The appellants argue, "the proposed amendment should have been
entered. . . ." (Reply Br. at 4.) Such an issue is to be settled by petition to the Director
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"), however, rather than by appeal to the
PTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d
1395, 1403, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007