Appeal No. 99-0210
Application 08/732,285
indefiniteness. We will not sustain this portion of the
Section 112 rejection.
The examiner also holds claim 15 to be indefinite because
“it cannot be determined whether appellant intends to claim
the subcombination of a sealing apparatus, or a sealing
apparatus in combination with a closure” (Answer, page 4). We
see no reason why including in the elastic sealing apparatus a
semi-finished enclosure having a groove causes the claim to
become indefinite, for it simply adds structure and therefore
narrows the scope. From our perspective, the scope of the
claim is clear. This portion of the rejection is not
sustained.
We also will not sustain the portion of this rejection
that is applied against claim 22. The appellant has defined
element 3 as a profile[d] base and element 11 as a ridge. In
Figure 1 the base is horizontal. In Figure 2 it is bent
outward (downward, as shown) in the direction of the anchoring
wedge, which enlarges the two chambers at the expense of the
hollow portion of the anchor. We do not agree that this
language cannot be understood.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007