Appeal No. 97-3199
Application No. 08/273,767
area equal to an area of a surface which exactly covers said
respective openings” in claim 2 (lines 3 and 4).
We agree with the examiner that the specified language is
somewhat awkward, or “not elegant” as acknowledged by
appellants (main brief, page 14). Nevertheless, read in light
of the underlying disclosure, we consider the content of claim
2 to be understandable and definite to the extent that the
metes and bounds of the claim coverage is determinate. More
specifically, we view this language of lines 3 and 4 as simply
denoting the area coverage of the openings, a necessary area
for ascertaining the obstruction ratio subsequently set forth
in claim 2. It is for this reason that the rejection must be
reversed.
The anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 8
We affirm the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) based upon the Knief patent, as well as the rejection
of claim 8 which stands or falls with claim 1.
Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) is established only
when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly
or under principles of inherency, each and every element of a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007