Appeal No. 97-0677
Application No. 08/312,710
As set forth previously with respect to claim 1, our
review of the specification leads us to conclude that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand the
metes and bounds of the terminology "in close proximity"
recited in claims 1 and 4. Since the appellants' specification
fails to set forth an adequate definition as to what is meant
by the terminology "in close proximity" recited in claim 4, the
appellants have failed to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112.
Additionally, the terminology "said inside surfaces"
recited in the last line of claim 4 lacks antecedent basis in
the claim since the claim does not recite any element having an
inside surface. Since claim 4 lacks antecedent basis for "said
inside surfaces," the appellants have failed to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
CONCLUSION
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007