Appeal 2007-0756
Application 10/652,853
light of Appellants’ Specification. Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in
the art would not be able to determine whether the “normally closed
solenoid valves” in claim 4 refer to one of the disclosed normally closed
valves, inadvertently lacking antecedent basis in the claim, or to the
“normally open solenoid valves” recited in claim 4 as part of the control
valve units, with the term “closed” being inserted inadvertently in place of
“open.” Accordingly, claim 4 is indefinite.
SUMMARY
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 is affirmed as to
claims 1-3 and 5-12 and reversed as to claim 4. A new rejection of claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is entered pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(b).
Regarding the affirmed rejections, 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) provides
“[a]ppellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months from
the date of the original decision of the Board.”
In addition to affirming the Examiner's rejections of one or more
claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013