Appeal No. 1996-3903 Page 5
Application No. 08/305,225
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
With respect to claim 33, the examiner argues that the limitation “having a structure
and configuration excluding bellows structure and configuration” is unclear and
misdescriptive of the invention. (See answer at page 4.) We agree with the examiner that
this limitation does not define appellants’ invention with sufficient detail to enable skilled
artisans to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Furthermore, we
have reviewed the specification to further define the interpretation of the recited claim
limitations. We find not disclosure in the specification as originally filed which further aids
6
in the determination of the metes and bounds of this claim limitation. Moreover, the
examiner argues that the various embodiments of the elastic membrane would appear to
have a “bellows structure and configuration” as defined in the dictionary definition set forth
by the examiner. We agree, but appellants argue that these embodiments are not ”bellows
structure and configuration.” In light of the conflicting possible interpretations, we find that
the claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Since the
limitations cannot be determined without speculation, we will sustain the rejection of claims
33-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
6 We find no clear support in the specification as originally filed for this negative limitation, but a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph has not been applied by the examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007