Appeal No. 1999-2625
Application 08/763,929
“base” can form the claimed “channel.” Insufficient
structure is set forth to support the “channel”
limitation. Moreover, applicant’s use of the
terminology “channel” to describe a structure
(referred to as 187 in Figures 14-20) having a base
(174) and only a single side (182) is an
unreasonable distortion of the common meaning of the
term “channel.” [examiner’s answer, page 3].
As appreciated by the examiner, the recitation in claims
1 and 13 of a base and a labial wall which together define a
channel reads on the appellant’s disclosure of base 174 and
labial wall 182 which together define channel 187 (see, for
example, specification page 14 and drawing Figures 16 and 23).
Even though it is composed of a base and but a single side
wall, structure 187 falls within the ordinary and accustomed
meaning of the term “channel” (“a trench, furrow, or groove”)
which has been proffered by the appellant (see page 4 in the
main brief) and accepted by the examiner (see page 3 in the
answer). Thus, the examiner’s concern about the definiteness
of the channel limitations in claims 1 and 13 is unfounded.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1 through 13, 15
and 17 through 20.
As for the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejections, while both Ross
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007