Appeal No. 97-2725
Application 08/138,456
page 10 of the brief that the “label or indicator is recited
in combination with the inlet cover and the storage tank.”
Appellant also contends that the scope of the preamble of
claim 1 is consistent with the scope of body of the claim in
the sense that both the preamble and the body of the claim are
directed to the foregoing combination. Given this argument,
appellant is bound by this interpretation of the claim.
Indeed, the only reasonable interpretation which can placed on
the recitation that the label is “placed adjacent to an inlet
. . .” (emphasis added) in the preamble of the claim and
further that the primary mass is “placed adjacent an inlet
cover . . .” (emphasis added) in the body of the claim is that
claim 1 is directed to the combination of the label with the
inlet cover and the storage tank.
In his answer (see page 10), the examiner agrees with
the foregoing interpretation of claim 1 and expressly
withdraws his earlier criticism concerning the lack of
consistency between the preamble and the body of claim 1. The
only remaining criticisms of claim 1 concern the recitation of
“the surface” in lines 9 and 10 and the recitation of “a
conduit” in line 11 of the claim.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007