Ex parte MALIK et al. - Page 13




          Appeal No. 97-0677                                                          
          Application No. 08/312,710                                                  


               As set forth previously with respect to claim 1, our                   
          review of the specification leads us to conclude that one of                
          ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand the               
          metes and bounds of the terminology "in close proximity"                    
          recited in claims 1 and 4.  Since the appellants' specification             
          fails to set forth an adequate definition as to what is meant               
          by the terminology "in close proximity" recited in claim 4, the             
          appellants have failed to particularly point out and distinctly             
          claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of 35               
          U.S.C.  112.                                                               


               Additionally, the terminology "said inside surfaces"                   
          recited in the last line of claim 4 lacks antecedent basis in               
          the claim since the claim does not recite any element having an             
          inside surface.  Since claim 4 lacks antecedent basis for "said             
          inside surfaces," the appellants have failed to particularly                
          point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the             
          second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.  112.                                        


                                      CONCLUSION                                      


                                          13                                          





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007