Appeal No. 96-1678
Application 08/322,731
transverse to an axis of said roll . . .”) is inaccurate.3
With respect to (1), we simply disagree with the examiner
that the terminology of claim 19, lines 32-36 is inaccurate. As
pointed out in the substitute specification at page 10, line 25
through page 11, line 1, and as clearly illustrated in Figures 2
and 3, the guide means (incorrectly numbered element 1 in Figures
2 and 3) is axially offset relative to the upper wedge-shaped gap
in order to accommodate therebetween sealing element 18 when the
sealing element is in its operative (solid line) position.
Concerning (2), it is our view that the terminology found
objectionable by the examiner is not merely a statement of
intended use, but rather a part of the means-plus-function
limitation found in lines 15-18 of the claim (“means for lowering
. . . through said lower wedge-shaped gap”). In any event, even
if the terminology in question was merely a statement of intended
use, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the technique of
claiming something in terms of what it does rather than what it
is. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA
1971).
3The examiner no longer maintains that the last three lines
of claim 19 are inaccurate. See page 3 of the supplemental
answer.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007