Appeal No. 96-0831
Application 08/191,113
pertinent art. Id. Having done so, we find ourselves agreeing
with the examiner on only one of the several issues raised. 2
Claim 4 recites that the “dimension and proportions of the
elements” meet specific requirements (emphasis added). It is the
examiner’s position that what constitutes “the elements” is not
clear. There is no antecedent basis for this phrase. The only
appearances of “element” are the “peripheral sealing element” of
the soft member and the “base element” of the rigid member
recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, to which one
could assume the phrase in question is meant to refer. However,
the appellant has clouded the issue by not suggesting this to be
the case, but arguing on page 11 of the Brief that “[a]ny article
includes elements . . . [and] the expression is a simple
reference to the elements of the grommet.” This buttresses the
examiner’s conclusion that this phrase is indefinite, in that its
breadth appears to be open to interpretation, and therefore the
metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
2The recitation of “hold” instead of “hole” in line 13 of
claim 1 clearly is an inadvertent typographical error which,
although it should be corrected does not, in our view, rise to
the level of a rejection under Section 112. We also note that
the examiner has withdrawn the Section 112 rejection directed at
language on line 23 of claim 1 (Answer, page 6).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007