Appeal No. 2003-1725
Application No. 09/357,645 Page 7
Again, the examiner appears to have confused breadth with
indefiniteness. As aptly stated by appellants in referring to
claim 1 (supplemental brief, page 9), “[t]he forces referred to
in the claim can be any force that may be applied to the
occluding member, from essentially any source.” Moreover, as
correctly noted by appellants (supplemental brief, pages 9 - 11
and reply brief, pages 6-9), the force referred to in claim 7 is
clearly a force applied by the force actuator and the bending
force of claim 8 is a particular force that may be applied by the
force actuator and is described in terms of the result achieved
by the application of that force. It follows that we will not
sustain the examiner’s § 112, second paragraph rejection alleging
indefiniteness based on the force recitations.
Collapsible Tube
Regarding claim 5, the examiner asserts that the recitation
therein of “a tube” “appears to be at least a partial double
inclusion of `at least one collapsible tube’ in claim 1.”
(answer, page 5). Additionally, the examiner argues that “the
collapsible tube” of claim 8 raises an issue as to which “at
least one collapsible tube” it is referring to. The examiner
also suggests that “[s]imilar vagueness exists in claims 12-24,
26-28, and 32".
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007