Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim that which appellants regard as their invention. The first
issue raised by the examiner is that appellants’ reference to “a
recess in the base” in independent claims 1 and 11 has no clear
antecedent basis, since no “base” of the adapter block has been
positively recited in these claims. It appears to us from
footnote 2 on page 5 of the brief that appellants have acquiesced
in this aspect of the examiner’s rejection and intend to correct
the lack of antecedent basis in claims 1 and 11 at some later
date. Thus, the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and
11 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, and of claims 3
through 10, 12 and 17 through 20 which depend therefrom, is
sustained. The recitation of “a recess in the base” in claim 14
on appeal also renders that claim indefinite and the examiner’s
rejection of claim 14 is likewise sustained.
The examiner further rejects independent claims 11 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, because of the lack of
any proper antecedent basis for the recitation “each and every
socket,” set forth therein. Finding no argument in appellants’
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007