Appeal No. 97-2597
Application 08/176,056
The rejections are explained in the final rejection
(Paper No. 16) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 23).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in
the brief (Paper No. 22) and the reply brief (Paper No. 25).
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph, Rejection
In rejecting the appealed claims under the second
paragraph of § 112, the examiner considers that the term
“elastically extensible” found in line 2 of claim 29 is
indefinite. The examiner recognizes that appellants’
specification provides a definition of this term. The
examiner considers, however, that the term in question is
indefinite because its definition in the specification “sets
forth a narrow range within a broader range and uncertainty
exists since one cannot tell if the narrower limitation is a
restriction on the broader limitation” (answer, sentence
spanning pages 4 and 5).
During patent prosecution, claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404, 162 USPQ
541, 550 (CCPA 1969). Furthermore, when the specification
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007