Appeal No. 97-1366
Application No. 08/281,318
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, it is the
examiner's position that the claims are indefinite because (i)
the "claims are unclear as to the structure defined by the
language 'without raising or lowering . . . flange'" and (ii)
the relationship between the "floor" recited in the body of
the claims and the "floor" recited in the preamble of the
claims is unclear (answer, pages 4 and 5). Appellant points
out that it is the press catch connector which permits
relative rotation between the outer flange and the discharge
tube without raising or lowering the discharge tube relative
to the outer flange, i.e., without any
vertical displacement of the discharge tube (brief, pages 5
and 6). Appellant also believes that the amendments made to
claims 1
and 10 subsequent to the final rejection clarified the use of
the term "floor" (brief, page 5).
The definiteness of claim language is analyzed, not in a
vacuum, but always in light at the teachings of the prior art
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007