Appeal 2006-1989
Application 09/772,278
Patent 5,996,948
the rim has not been shown to be “for laterally displacing each wire leg
relative to said upper rim” as required by claim 1.
Therefore, we conclude Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
with respect to this rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
DISCUSSION – NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
A. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “at the separation of the upright sections into
segments.” The meaning of this recitation is indefinite because there is no
antecedent basis for “the separation” and because it is unclear what is being
described by the term “segments.”
B. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims
- 25 -
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013