Appeal No. 95-4344
Application 08/087,030
light of the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art. Id.
The preamble of independent claim 18 sets forth “A crush resistant flexible tubular conduit
capable of withstanding high external hydrostatic pressures.” The underlying specification indicates that
such a conduit requires “a precise interlocking, without radial free play between the confronting portions
of the adjacent spirals” (page 3). As clearly shown in Figures 3 through 7, and as conceded by counsel
at the oral hearing, contact between the intermediate section 13 of the profiled band of the conduit and
the first secondary portion of the adjacent turn is necessary to prevent radial free play between the
confronting portions of the adjacent spirals. Such contact, however, is not recited in the bodies of
claims 18 through 20, 22 and 24 through 31. This inconsistency renders the scope of these claims
unclear.
Claim 20 is additionally indefinite in that the recitation therein that the discrete end section is
slightly tapered and bears at its end on the first main portion of the adjacent turn is, as conceded by
counsel at the oral hearing, inconsistent with the recitation in parent claim 18 that the discrete end
section bears in face-to-face contact at its end surfaces on the first main portion of the immediately
adjacent turn.
Claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as being based on a
specification which fails to comply with the written description requirement of this section of the statute.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007