Appeal No. 2000-0560
Application No. 08/578,636
Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302-03, 190 USPQ 425, 426-27 (CCPA
1976)).
While we might speculate as to what group of parts form
the claimed sealing arrangement, our uncertainty provides us
with no proper basis for making the comparison between that
which is claimed and the prior art as we are obliged to do.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should not be based upon
"considerable speculation as to the meaning of the terms
employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims." In
re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse, pro forma, the
examiner's rejection of claims 9, 10 and 12 through 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). We hasten to add that this is a
procedural reversal rather than one based upon the merits of
the § 102(b) rejection.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 9, 10 and 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007