Appeal No. 2003-1477
Application No. 09/248,533
For the reasons set forth below, we will sustain the
examiner’s prior art rejections but not his § 112, second
paragraph, rejection.
The only exposition offered by the examiner in support of
his § 112, second paragraph, rejection appears on page 3 of the
answer and reads as follows:
Claim 4 recites [the] limitation: “each of said
comprising” in line 2. It is not clear what “said” is
in reference to. Also, Claim 9, line 4, the term
“carrier” has been misspelling [sic].
Without question, the afore-quoted exposition completely
fails to support the examiner’s § 112, second paragraph,
rejection. The claim 4 criticism is not even accurate in light
of the previously discussed amendment filed by the appellants on
December 5, 2001. Likewise, the claim 9 criticism is inaccurate
since the term “carrier”, though misspelled in the claim copy
appearing the brief appendix, is correctly spelled in the actual
claim.4
Under these circumstances, it is apparent that the
4 In any event, we do not perceive and the examiner does not explain why
a misspelled term would render a claim offensive to the second paragraph of
§ 112.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007