Appeal No. 99-0629 Page 8
Application No. 08/778,059
ordinary skill in the art would have known, from reading this
disclosure in the appellant's specification, that the members
(64) constitute the structure that performs the function of
triggering the first discharge means and second discharge
means (dart discharge member 52).
In making this rejection, the examiner points out that 37
CFR § 1.75(d)(1) requires that the words and phrases used in
the claims must appear in the specification (final rejection,
page 2). While it is true that 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1) provides,
in part, "the terms and phrases used in the claims must find
clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that
the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by
reference to the description," compliance with 37 CFR §
1.75(d)(1) is not required for compliance with the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 and, as such, is not relevant to
the rejection before us.
As to the examiner's suggestion that the appellant's
specification fails to set forth an adequate disclosure of the
"trigger means . . ." in that it does not disclose a single
trigger that operates plural chambers, the "broadest
reasonable interpretation" that an examiner may give
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007