Appeal No. 95-4462
Application 08/190,950
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer
(Paper No. 10) and the supplemental examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 12).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in
the brief (Paper No. 9) and the reply brief (Paper No. 11).
OPINION
We have encountered substantial difficulty in
understanding precisely what is meant by certain claim
language in the appealed claims. Our difficulty centers on
the recitation added to claim 1 subsequent to the final
rejection that the diameter of the aperture “is substantially
similar to” the diameter of the passage in the barrel.
When words of degree such as “substantially similar” are
used in a claim, our reviewing court has directed us to look
to appellants’ specification to determine if it contains “some
standard for measuring that degree,” that is, whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope or metes
and bounds of the claimed subject matter when read in light of
the specification. See Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating
that they have been withdrawn. See Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ
180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007