Appeal No. 95-4486 Page 5
Application No. 08/158,713
With this as background, we analyze the specific rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of
the claims on appeal.
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that the recitation
of "being sealed prior to assembly" in claims 6 and 12 renders
the claims indefinite.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6-7 and reply brief, pp. 1-
2) that the claims under appeal are definite under the standards
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We agree. It is our
opinion that claims 6 and 12 do set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity and therefore are in compliance with the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. It is clear to us that claim 6
requires that the fluid tight damping chamber be sealed prior to
its assembly in position adjacent one of the compliance members.
It is equally clear to us that claim 12 requires that the fluid-
tight module be sealed prior to its assembly against the
resiliently deformable member. 2
2We have interpreted the phrase "the fluid-tight module
being sealed prior to assembly against the resiliently deformable
members" to be "the fluid-tight module being sealed prior to
assembly against the resiliently deformable member" since claim
12 recites only one resiliently deformable member (i.e., at least
one resiliently deformable member).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007