Appeal No. 2002-0532
Application No. 09/069,457 Page 9
direction . . . .’ in claim 30?” Appellant does not dispute the
examiner's determination of indefiniteness, but instead asserts
(brief, page 16) that appellant proposes amending claim 31 to
remove the redundant reference to the lamp wall. From our review
of the claim, we agree that the "cylindrical tube wall" is a
double inclusion of the previously claimed "lamp wall" of
misnumbered claim 30, filed September 8, 2000, from which
misnumbered claim 31 depends.
From all of the above, the rejection of claims 1-12 and
misnumbered claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed. The rejection of claims 13-32, and misnumbered claims
31-33, under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-32 and
misnumbered claims 30-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). A claim is
anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a
single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil
Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). The examiner (answer, page 5)
refers us to a marked-up copy of figure 2 of Robertson to explain
how the claims are anticipated. Appellant asserts (brief, page
16) that the pin receptacles 104 and 105 of Robertson are fixed
or molded in place so they cannot be inserted or removed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007