Appeal No. 98-3287
Reissue Application 08/354,624
50% of the total length of the elongated tube and the
flattened enhanced portion appears somewhat shorter than the
flue portion.
We would expect the meaning of "a substantial axial
portion of said elongated tube" to have the same meaning with
respect to the flue portion and to the enhanced portion, but
appellant's drawings show the flue portion to be longer than
the enhanced portion and suggest that the expression has a
different meaning with respect to each of the different
portions. Thus, when read in light of the showing in Figures
1-3 and 18, the recitation that the flue portion and the
enhanced portion each extend "a substantial axial portion of
said elongated tube" becomes even more confusing.
For the foregoing reasons, one of ordinary skill in the
art would not understand the scope of the claimed subject
matter when read in light of appellant’s specification.
Accordingly, the Seattle Box test discussed supra has not been
met.
In the final analysis, claims 1, 7 and 19 and,
consequently, the claims which depend directly or indirectly
therefrom do not define the metes and bounds of the invention
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007