Appeal No. 2004-2052
Application 09/509,147
brief specifically addressing this aspect of the examiner’s
indefiniteness rejection, we will summarily sustain. It follows
that claims 14 through 16 which depend from independent claim 13
are also indefinite as a result of their dependency, and that the
examiner’s rejection of those claims under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 will also be sustained.
As a result of the foregoing, it is clear that at least one
basis for the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been sustained.
Thus, the decision of the examiner rejecting those claims as
being indefinite is affirmed.
We have also looked to the additional aspects of purported
indefiniteness noted by the examiner in the paragraphs bridging
pages 5 and 6 of the answer and specifically concerning dependent
claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 17 and 19 on appeal, but find that we do not
agree with the examiner’s position concerning those aspects of
the rejection. Regarding the examiner’s assertion that claim 1
cannot be limited by claim 3, we agree with appellants’ argument
on page 3 of the brief that the “guide means” of claim 3 includes
both the rim and the recess, as generally stated in the second
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007