Appeal No. 95-3789 Page 11
Application No. 08/047,047
closure." Claim 19 positively recites the step of "internally
pressurizing . . ." and thereafter recites the step of "applying
a closure. . . ." As can readily be seen the steps claimed do
not comport with the order of steps in the process given in the
appellants' disclosure. Thus, claims 15 and 19 are
misdescriptive of the process as disclosed and are therefore
indefinite.
Thirdly, both of the independent claims on appeal call for a
"hot filled container of the type. . . ." We have often held
that language such as this is indefinite for the reason that no
definitive statement in the specification explains what type of
container "of the type" is intended to cover. Cf. Ex parte
Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989)("for high
pressure cleaning units or similar apparatus"). See also Ex
parte Steigerwald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1981)("such as"), Ex
parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949)("which may be," and
"such as, for example"), Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App.
1948)("material such as rock wool or asbestos,"), Ex parte Lean,
72 USPQ 453 (Bd. Pat. App. 1947)("and like pests" in preamble),
Ex parte Caldwell, 1906 C.D. 58 (Comm'r. 1905), and Ex parte
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007