Appeal No. 98-1019
Application 08/500,782
(Paper No. 14, mailed November 4, 1997).
The opposing viewpoints of appellant are set forth in the
brief (Paper No. 13, filed July 14, 1997).
OPINION
At the outset, we have encountered substantial difficulty
in understanding the metes and bounds of the appealed claims.
Starting with the requirement of independent claim 1 that
the applicator includes an application member of
“predetermined” flexibility, we have had difficulty in
determining what this term encompasses. The specification
gives no meaningful explanation of how the flexibility of the
application member is to be determined, much less what
constitutes a “predetermined” flexibility. For example, the
specification gives broad ranges for the length, number, and
diameter of bristles that may make up the application member,
as well as examples of the material, surface treatment, and
cross-sectional shape of the bristles, all of which would
appear to have an impact on the flexibility of the application
member. However, the specification is silent as to how these
variables affect flexibility.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007