Appeal No. 2004-1087
Application No. 09/223,472
On page 5 of the brief, appellants state all the claims
stand or fall together. We therefore consider claim 1 in this
appeal. We also consider claim 33 regarding the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness). 37 CFR
§ 1.192(c)(7)and(8)(2002).
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph (indefiniteness)
rejection
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner states that claim 33
is indefinite because it refers to “the cross pattern”, which
lacks antecedent basis. The examiner also states that claim 33
should be dependent upon claim 32, rather than claim 27. We
note that in the final Office Action of Paper No. 18, the
examiner had also rejected claims 1-5 and 18-32 under this
rejection, but these claims are no longer rejected in this 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection. However, on pages 5-7
of the brief, we observe that appellants do not address claim
33. Because appellants do not dispute the rejection of claim
33, we affirm this rejection of claim 33.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection over Norris
In this rejection, the issue is whether the claimed
limitation of, when the outlet is viewed from the right, it is
at an angle other than normal to the surface, is taught by
Norris.
On pages 8-9 of brief, appellants argue that the series of
nozzles 128, 130, 132, 134, 136, and 138 depicted in Figure 4 of
Norris must be parallel to the plate electrodes 108 and 110.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007