Appeal No. 99-0179
Application 08/612,385
or prior art teachings. See In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993,
169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971); and In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232,
1235 n.2, 169 USPQ 236, 238 n.2 (CCPA 1971).
As discussed above, claims 1 and 8 recite an apparatus
wherein the seam is displaced from the perimeter of the shell,
with the first and second ends of the seam having an increased
displacement from the perimeter at the opening. Specification
pages 8 through 10 and Figures 3 and 4 of the appellant’s
disclosure indicate, however, that the seam is actually
displaced from the perimeter of the pattern used to make the
shell rather than from the perimeter of the shell itself. 3
Indeed, the appellant’s disclosure of the seam and the manner
in which it is made indicates that the seam is on, rather than
displaced from, the perimeter, i.e., the outer surface, of the
shell. This inconsistency between the disclosure and claims 1
and 8 renders the scope of the appealed claims indefinite.
In summary:
3Although specification page 9 contains a statement that
the first and second seam ends are formed with an increased
displacement from the perimeter of the “shell” at the opening
(see lines 25 through 27), this statement is at odds with the
rest of the relevant disclosure which mentions the “perimeter”
only in the context of the pattern.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007