Appeal No. 97-2785
Application 08/173,698
Thus, in the present case, the broadened reissue claims 5
through 8 merely omit or broaden an unnecessary limitation as
was the case in Peters. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
rejections of appealed claims 5 through 8 under § 251 and §
112, first paragraph.
With regard to the rejection of claim 8 under the second
paragraph of § 112, the examiner’s difficulty with the claim
language centers on the recitation of the “means for coacting
between a female housing, said space and relief to retain said
male coupler and flexible conduit in said female housing.”
Typically, the term “between” is used to refer to some element
or structure interacting with or lying intermediate two
physical objects.
In the present case, however, the term “between” is used
to define the relationship of the coacting means with respect
to two objects (namely, the female housing and the relief) and
a space. In the first place, it is not clear how a structure
such as the coacting means can coact with a space for any
purpose, let alone the claimed purpose. Furthermore, it is not
clear from the claim language whether the coacting means is
intended to coact between the female housing, on the one hand,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007