Appeal No. 95-5027
Application 08/993,198
indefinite because the limitation that the transverse
partition be “elastically extensible” is inconsistent with the
requirement in parent claim 1 that this element be
“nonresilient.” We first note here that not only has no
definition been provided by the appellants for the term
“nonresilient,” but the term is not even present in the
original disclosure. We therefore shall look to the common
definition, where we find that “resilient” means that a body
has
the capability to recover its size and shape after
deformation, so it follows that an object that is
“nonresilient” would not be capable of recovering its size and
shape when the deforming force is removed, or would not be
deformable in the first place. The common definition of
“elastic” is, interestingly, the same as that of resilient,
with each term being listed in the dictionary as a synonym of
the other. See, for example, Merriam Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, Tenth Edition, 1996, pages 996 and 370. Based
upon these common definitions, we conclude that an object that
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007