Appeal No. 96-3037
Application No. 08/252,474
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 that the specification conclude
with claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the
subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. See
Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1580, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In the present case, nothing in the
specification establishes that an interpretation narrower than
the common one should be given to the phrase “laterally
positioned.” This being the case, although we admit that the
insulators disclosed by Thio are oriented to a different plane
than that of those disclosed by the appellant, they nevertheless
are “laterally positioned,” that is, located to the side, of the
axis of the bore of the gun.
For this reason, the rejection of independent claim 1 as
being anticipated by Thio is sustained. Since the appellant has
chosen to have all of the claims stand or fall together
(Supplemental Brief, page 5), the rejection of claims 5, 7, 8 and
10-12 on this same basis also is sustained.
The Section 102 Rejection on the Basis of Bauer
Bauer also is directed to a railgun. However, the structure
in Bauer differs substantially from that which is set forth in
independent claims 1 and 12. In the Bauer device (as pictured in
Figure 6), it is each of the rails 604 and 606 which comprise a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007