Appeal No. 98-1848
Application 08/500,781
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 22
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. In this regard, 4
the specification gives broad ranges for the number, length,
and thickness of the bristles that may make up the application
member, as well as examples of the cross-sectional shape,
surface treatment and material 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.
4At oral hearing, counsel for appellant was understood
to say that the term “predetermined” was meaningless, could be
ignored, and could just as easily have been deleted from the
claim. We decline to read this term out of the claim, if that
was counsel’s intent.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007