Joint Appendix (Part 1)

.·Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: misspelling ofthe word manifold. Appropriate correction is required.Claim Rejections· Rejections. 35 USC§ § 112The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctlyclaiming the subject sUbject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.1) Claims 3,11 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, secondparagraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctlyclaim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.In claim 3, "the body formation" lacks antecedent basis.In claim 11, "the assembly" lacks antecedent basis.In claim 12, its is unclear to which structures are being referenced by"them" and "they".In claims 15 and 16, "non-interference position"In claims 18-20 it is unclear if the "substantial substance of material" is anadditional coating on the material forming the turret or if it is intending to recitethat said material forming said turret is made from brass.Claim Rejections- - 35 USC§ § 103The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis forall obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or describedas set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject sUbject matter sought tobe patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have beenobvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to whichsaid sUbject subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which theinvention was made.PLAINTIFF 000041-A157-