Appeal No. 1998-0046 Page 7
Application No. 08/357,320
and bounds of the claimed invention with the precision
required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See In
re Hammack, supra.
Since the appellant's disclosure fails to set forth an
adequate definition as to what is meant by the terminology
"substantially parallel" in claim 1, and claims 2 through 6, 9
and 10 which depend therefrom, the appellant has failed to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as
required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Our findings, discussed above, in reviewing the
appellant's disclosure have led us to review the appellant's
original disclosure, including the original claims , to4
determine whether the appellant's disclosure, as originally
filed, provided adequate support for the "substantially
parallel" limitation in compliance with the written
description requirement of the first paragraph of § 112.
Our review of the original claims reveals that the "substantially4
parallel" limitation was not present in any of the original claims of the
application.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007