Appeal No. 2001-0089
Application 08/975,469
We remand this application to the examiner as review the
following matter.
The examiner should consider whether the claimed subject
matter has descriptive support (35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph) in the underlying disclosure. As pointed out
above, appellants’ original disclosure explicitly teaches that
plastic sheath 18 engages into the retaining groove 46. Thus,
the now claimed “annular plastic ring” obviously evolved from
the plastic sheath 18. However, the disclosure is silent as
to what method steps effected the metamorphosis from the
plastic sheath engaging the retaining groove to the plastic
sheath and spaced “annular plastic ring” arrangement depicted
in appellants’ Figure 1. It is also noted that, as disclosed,
the plastic sheath forms radially extending side surfaces of
an annular groove 25. The examiner should review the language
of each of claims 7 and 16, in particular, to ascertain if the
disclosure supports forming an annular plastic ring in a
retaining groove, forming a plastic sheath, and forming an
annular groove bordered between the plastic sheath and the
annular plastic ring. Further, the examiner should assess the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007