Appeal No. 2002-2206 Page 3
Application No. 09/054,211
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 18 and 25) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 24 and 26) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
The examiner has rejected claim 26 as being indefinite because “the planar
base” lacks antecedent basis and appellant has not disputed the examiner’s position.
Rather, appellant has indicated an intention to amend claim 26 to replace the
terminology “planar base” with “plate” upon the resolution of this appeal. Accordingly,
we summarily sustain this rejection. We also note, however, in accordance with our
authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(c), that amendment of claim 26 to replace both
occurrences of “planar base” with “plate” would overcome this rejection.
The anticipation rejection
Claim 13 calls for a device for removal of pests and pest eggs from a comb
having, inter alia, a plurality of teeth having separations therebetween sized to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007