Appeal No. 97-3757
Application 08/298,351
said lower end of said third part having a second
diameter greater than said first diameter of said
radially innermost part of said annular support and
said upper end of said third part having a third
diameter less than said first diameter of said radially
innermost part of said annular support, wherein there
is a discontinuity between said upper end of said third
part and said center panel.
With regard to the term “discontinuity” in the penultimate
line of claim 53, we do not find any such term used in connection
with, for example, the description of the point at the upper end
of dimension L in Figs. 15 and 16 . Nevertheless, we understand2 2
from appellants’ brief at pages 19 to 20 that this term refers to
the fact that in Fig. 16, for example, the upper end of the
third part 88 of the panel positioning portion is differentiated
from center panel 38, presumably by the change in radius (from
R to R ).pR 5R
In attempting to read the above-noted claim recitations on
Claydon’s Fig. 10, one would have to construe the claimed second
part of the panel positioning portion as annular wall 5 of
Claydon, and the claimed third part as part of the outer edge of
37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) requires that terms used in the claims must find2
clear support or antecedent basis in the description. The specification
should be appropriately amended to provide such antecedent basis.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007