Appeal No. 2002-2185
Application 08/976,361
be “substantially as large”, as claimed. Thus, we determine that
the examiner’s conclusion of indefiniteness is sound.
For the reasons articulated above, the arguments of
appellants (main brief, pages 12 and 13) fail to convince us that
the limitations at issue are definite in meaning.
OBVIOUSNESS ISSUES
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 12, 14, 20, 23
through 25, 27, 31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Japan ‘494 in view of Johansson.
While we fully comprehend both the examiner’s and
appellants’ assessment of the Japan ‘494 reference, a reading of
the translation of this foreign language document makes it
apparent to us that the disclosure thereof is uncertain in
meaning. The reference sets forth that a plate-shaped blade is
provided on the top surface of a lattice 10 so as to reduce a
spacer cell C in diameter, which cell has no fuel rod inserted
therein. Thus, on the one hand, the blade is indicated to be on
the top surface of the lattice (the inference being that there is
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007