Appeal No. 98-0057
Application No. 08/320,016
distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant regards as
his invention.2
The basis for the rejection of claims 1 through 8 under
the second paragraph of § 112 involves two limitations in
claim 1. The examiner’s first difficulty with the claim
language centers on the recitation that the outer plastic
layer has “an ultraviolet light-protective color.” The
examiner’s second difficulty with the claim language centers
on the word “accurately” in the recitation that the inner
plastic layer “is [sic, has] a light-reflecting color such
that the interior of said helical pipe can be accurately
inspected . . .”
In arguing that the claim language is definite, appellant
relies on the following definitions presented on page 8 of the
specification for the expressions “ultraviolet light-
protective color” and “light-reflecting color”:
By ultraviolet light-protective color it is meant
that the plastic layer has a color and composition
sufficient to prevent or retard the deterioration of
2The examiner has offered no reason why claim 15 was
omitted from this rejection, despite the fact that this
dependent claim, like claims 2 through 8, is in the chain of
dependency from claim 1.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007