Appeal No. 95-1747
Application 08/047,994
Applying these precepts to the present application, we
find that, when the claim language questioned by the examiner is
read in light of the present application disclosure as such would
be interpreted by the hypothetical person possessing an ordinary
level of skill in the art, and particularly when this language
is viewed in light of the invention as seen, for example, in
Figure 4 of the application drawings, the claim language is
reasonably clear and precise, and the subject matter of the
appealed claims is not indefinite.
From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in the
art would readily understand that the recitations in appealed
claims 9 and 10 relating to (1) the sizing of the orifice in the
base segment, (2) the sizing of the puncture mechanism
protrusion, and (3) the strength of the puncture mechanism
protrusion, define these elements in terms of their function and
capabilities with regard to a range of soft packs with which the
opener may be used. In particular, the claim recitations require
the orifice to be sized so at to "receive a corresponding dosage
unit section of a soft pack" and the puncture mechanism
protrusion to have a size and strength so that it will puncture
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007