Interference No. 103,036
In item 14, the motion urges that the Burroughs et al.
specification does not contain a written description for the
“coupling means" limitation of reissue claim 50. The motion
relies upon Dr. Feder's testimony at CR 75 to 77 to show a lack
of written description. The motion is granted as to this item.
In our decision on the party Cataldi et al.'s motion
no. 2, supra, we held that this claim is indefinite. In so
holding, we agreed with the party Cataldi et al. that the term
“coupling means" is not defined in the Burroughs specification
and that the specification does not show any structure for the
coupling means. We rejected the party Burroughs et al.'s
argument that the structure is shown where the pyrotechnic
chemical is surrounded by the color indicating, heat sensitive
material or by the alternative embodiment where the device is
fabricated without the pyrotechnic chemical so that the heat
sensitive material contacts the conductive area. The coupling
means is not equivalent to the heat sensitive material contacting
the conductive area, because no interaction other than contacting
is specified.
In item 15, the motion urges that the Burroughs et al.
specification does not contain a written description for the
"means to transfer" limitation of reissue claim 51. The motion
relies upon Dr. Feder's testimony at CR 77 and 78 to show a lack
-61-
Page: Previous 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007