Appeal No. 97-0677
Application No. 08/312,710
In the present case, we have reviewed the appellants'
disclosure to help us determine the meaning of the above-noted
terminology from claim 1. That review has revealed that the
appellants' have used the terminology "in close proximity" on
pages 4, 9 and 16 of the specification, in the abstract and in
claims 1 and 4. Page 9 of the specification provides that
Figure 2 shows the tangential plane E of the outside surface
12a of the body portion 12 in close proximity to the tangential
plane E' of the outer surface 22a of the handling ring 20.
Pages 9-10 of the specification provide that Figure 3 shows the
tangential plane of the outer surface 22a of the handling ring
20 of a prior art drum extends a substantial distance outwardly
from the tangential plane along the outside surface of the body
portion 12 of the prior art drum. However, these portions of
the disclosure do not provide explicit guidelines defining the
terminology "in close proximity" (claim 1). Furthermore, there
are no guidelines that would be implicit to one skilled in the
art defining the terminology "in close proximity" as used in
claim 1 that would enable one skilled in the art to ascertain
what is meant by "in close proximity." For example, one cannot
ascertain if the body portion outer surface of Pyzytulla's drum
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007