Appeal No. 97-4182
Application 08/429,150
“It is well settled that there is nothing intrinsically
wrong in defining something by what it does rather than
what it is.”
As to the examiner’s concern that recitations regarding
the method of erecting the tent have been recited, a product-by-
process claim does not inherently conflict with the second
paragraph of § 112 (In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685,
688 (CCPA 1972)) and product claims may be drafted to include
process steps to wholly or partially define the claimed product
(Hallman, 655 F.2d at 215, 210 USPQ at 611)).
As to the examiner’s contention that it is unclear whether
a rain fly is being claimed by itself or in combination with a
fabric canopy, we believe it is readily apparent that the
“lightweight vertical wall tent” defined in claim 1 comprises
both a rain fly and a fabric canopy that are in their fully
erected state (see, e.g., lines 1-4 and lines 36-42).
With respect to the examiner’s concern over the recitations
of “correct” lengths and positions, we must point out that, not
only does claim 1 expressly set forth what the “correct” lengths
and positions are, these limitations are clearly defined on pages
8 and 9 of the specification.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007