Appeal No. 2006-0524 Παγε 8
Application No. 10/051,577
pressing units 15, 19, and 22 appear to be intermingled with the surrounding elements.
Appellant asserts that the pressing elements along with the drive elements 3, 20
are all connected to a unit frame which connects all these elements to form the "closed
compact unit." However, the unit frame connects not only the pressing elements 15, 19
and 22 and the pressing drive elements 3 and 20 but also the cutting units and as such
is not closed in the sense of including only pressing elements and elements to drive the
pressing elements. Therefore, it is not clear what the term "closed" means in claim 1.
In addition, as claim 2 recites that the cutting units have a unit frame, it appears that the
unit frame recited in claim 2 is in addition to the closed compact unit. Thus the scope of
claim 1 along with claim 2 is unclear.
Claim 19 has similar language to claim 1 and thus is indefinite for the reasons
stated in regard to claim 1.
Claim 20 includes the limitation of the "closed compact unit" in regard to the
pressing elements and the term "unit frame" with regard to the cutting units and thus is
unclear for the same reasons stated above for claims 1 and 2.
In summary:
The examiner 's rejection of claims 2, 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph is not sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007