Appeal No. 98-2783
Application 08/450,009
A review of appellants’ disclosure and drawings reveals
quite clearly that “all parts” of the first (e.g., 15) and second
(e.g., 16) wire segments of appellants device do not run
longitudinally along the wire frame, as appellants have argued. In
fact, those portions of the first and second wire segments to which
reference characters (15) and (16), in Figure 6, each respectively
point, clearly do not “run longitudinally along the wire frame,” but
instead extend in a circumferential direction of the wire frame (1).
While it is
true that each of the wire segments of a pair of wire segments (e.g.,
24 in Figure 6) extends along the full extent of the wire frame (1)
from one end (32) to the opposite end (33) by being helically formed
on a mandrel together with other pairs of wires, this is not what is
recited in claim 1 on appeal and there is no clear indication in the
specification or appellants’ brief that this is what the questioned
language in claim 1 was intended to mean and would have reasonably
conveyed to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, we agree with
the examiner that independent claim 1 is indefinite and that claims 2
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007