Appeal No. 96-3610
Application 08/300,567
The indefiniteness rejection
We reverse this rejection of appellant’s claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We certainly appreciate from a reading of appellant’s
claims 23 and 25 the presence therein, both in the preamble and
throughout the body of the claim, reference to the box with which
the claimed inflatable cushion is to be used. However, appellant
acknowledges in the amended brief (page 11) that the claims
clearly state an inflatable cushion, with the references to the
use or function of the cushion in packaging items in a box being
simply to provide the environment in which the cushion is
intended to be used. We likewise understand from our reading of
claims 23 and 25 that these claims are broadly drawn to an
“inflatable cushion” per se; the recitation throughout the claims
of the inflatable cushion being for use in packaging items in a
box being but one possible intended use therefor. It is clear
that the examiner would likewise view the claims as definite with
the aforementioned interpretation thereof (answer, page 7). For
the above reasons, we determine that the claims are drawn to an
inflatable cushion per se and are definite.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007