Appeal No. 1998-2817
Application No. 08/455,366
paragraph, is appropriate.
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the
examiner of the claims on appeal. Specifically, the examiner
stated (answer, p. 4):
All claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential
structural cooperative relationships of elements, such
omission amounting to a gap between the necessary
structural connections. MPEP § 706.03(f). There is no
mention as to the length (or circumference) of the
elongate elastic member. No recitation of the length makes
the claims ambiguous. For example, a 1,000,000 mm elastic
member extended 300 mm over three cycles would produce
little or no stress in the elastic member, therefore,
little decay would probably occur. However, a 10 mm
elastic member extended 300 mm would be greatly over
stressed and most likely would tear in half. In addition
to the length, the width, thickness, and type of elastic
would all produce an affect on the results.
Claim 33 is ambiguous as to structure.
We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, p. 7) that
the claims under appeal do fully apprise those of ordinary
skill
in the art of the scope of the invention claimed, and thus
satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007