Court Opinions
State Laws
|
Ex Parte LENOIR et al - Page 4
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2003 > Ex Parte LENOIR et al - Page 4
Appeal No. 2002-0531 Page 4
Application No. 09/108,687
The examiner asserts, "[a]pplicant has not claimed any structure to support the
claimed hooked feature." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) The appellants argue, "[o]n
page 3, of the specification, line 16, it is stated that 'the front wall is detachably attached
to the contact supporting part 15 by means of hooks 18.' Reference is also made to
Fig. 1 where the hooks 18 are clearly illustrated." (Reply Br. at 2-3.)
"The test for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would understand the
bounds of the claim when read in light of the specification. Orthokinetics Inc., v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986). If
the claims read in light of the specification reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of
the scope of the invention, Section 112 demands no more. Hybritech, Inc. v.
Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1385, 231 USPQ 81, 94 (Fed. Cir. 1986)."
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 875, 27 USPQ2d 1123, 1126 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Here, claim 8 recites in pertinent part "a detachable wall in a front portion of the
housing having a grid of entrance openings . . . wherein when the detachable wall is in
a hooked position a first air chamber is formed within the front portion of the
housing. . . ." For its part, the appellants' specification explains that the "wall 11 is
detachably attached to the contact supporting part 15 by means of hooks 18." (Spec.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Last modified: November 3, 2007
|
|
