Appeal No. 95-4462
Application 08/190,950
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR 1.196(b), we make
the following new rejections.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. For the reasons discussed above, the appealed
claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellants regard as the invention for
the reasons discussed above. Specifically, we are unable to
determine with any reasonable degree of precision the metes
and bounds of the terminology “said aperture has a diameter
which is substantially similar to the diameter of said
passage” appearing in claim 1.
Claims 1-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification that fails
to provide descriptive support for the invention as now
claimed. Our difficulty with the claim language with respect
to the description requirement found in the first paragraph of
§ 112 is based on the recitation added to claim 1 subsequent
to the final rejection that the periphery of the contacting
wall has a diameter which is “at least twice” the diameter of
the aperture in the contacting wall.
As stated in In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007