Appeal No. 2004-1058
Application 09/584,053
appellants have no burden to establish that their grooming tool
will function in the manner disclosed and claimed.
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection of independent claims
12, 24 and 28 and dependent claims 13 through 18, 20, 22, 23, 25
through 27 and 29.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 12
through 18, 20 and 22 through 29
This rejection rests on the examiner’s contention that “the
phrase ‘such as’ [in the preambles of independent claims 12, 24
and 28] renders the claim[s] indefinite because it is unclear
whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the
claimed invention” (second final rejection, page 4].
The preambles of the three independent claims recite “A
method of removing loose hair from a furry pet such as a dog or
cat . . . .” The phrase “such as” merely specifies the dog or
cat as an example of the furry pet upon which the claimed method
is intended to be practiced. Hence, the reference to the dog or
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007