Appeal No. 2004-0906
Application No. 09/571,896
the rejections of claims 4 and 8 over Bumgarner or Crispen for
reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and reasons set forth
below. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, ¶2
The examiner finds that the term “substantially parallel
planar” as recited in claims 1 and 7 on appeal is indefinite since
it is unclear as to which elements are considered as parallel and
which elements have to be in a plane (Answer, paragraph bridging
pages 2-3; page 4, ¶(13)). Appellants argue that the subject of
the clause is the “pair” of rails which “is” substantially parallel
planar to a single wall (Brief, page 6; Reply Brief, page 2).
Therefore appellants submit that the claim is definite and clearly
indicates that it is the pair of rails which is substantially
parallel to the wall, with the pair of rails substantially defining
a plane, as does the wall (id.).
The examiner and appellants do not contest the meanings of
“parallel” or “planar” (see the Answer, the Brief and Reply Brief
in their entirety). The issue involves which elements of the
claim must be “substantially parallel planar” (id.). We agree
with appellants that the subject of the first clause of claim 1
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007