Appeal No. 97-3196
Application No. 08/569,275
arguments that it should not be considered to be new matter.
This rejection is sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
There are four parts to this rejection. The first is
that the term “rectangular,” as used in claims 21, 27 and 31,
is indefinite, in that it is not clear whether the appellant
is applying it to the shape of the cage or the shape of the
channel that extends through the cage. We do not agree. The
explicit language used in the claim is that the “cage” is
rectangular. There is no mention of a channel extending
through the cage. The common definition of “cage” is a box or
enclosure having some openwork. To state that this cage is3
“rectangular” in our view indicates to one of ordinary skill
in the art that the walls of the cage are of rectangular shape
and meet at right angles. This clearly is supported by the
disclosure of the invention. The fact that the claim language
is broad does not cause it to be indefinite.
The second item of alleged indefiniteness concerns what
is “fabricated” in claims 22, 24, 25 and 30. In our opinion
3See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, page 160.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007