Appeal No. 97-2486
Application No. 08/308,983
claim which would preclude one skilled in the art from
determining the metes and bounds of the claimed subject
matter. More specifically, this claim depends from claim 37
which sets forth that the step of coating cast conductive body
except for certain specified locations. Thus, parent claim 37
(which requires that less than the entirety of the cast
conductive body be coated) is inconsistent with dependent
claim 38 which requires that the entire cast conductive body
be coated. Thus, not only does claim 38 (which includes all
the limitations of claim 37 by virtue of its dependency
thereon) fail to accurately define the invention in the
technical sense since the cast conductive body cannot be
considered to be both partially coated and entirely coated,
but this language, when read in light of the appellants’ own
disclosure (which describes the subject matter of claims 37
and 38 as being separate, mutually exclusive embodiments),
results in an inexplicable inconsistency that renders it
indefinite.
In summary:
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007