Appeal No. 2000-0721 Page 10
Reissue Application No. 08/628,287
The examiner asserts, "[a]n invention which comprises
'striations', which are not 'longitudinally extending', is not
an 'invention disclosed in the original patent.' 35 U.S.C.
251. Under 35 U.S.C. 112, applicant does not appear entitled
to broader claims 5-83 ...." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) In
other words, the examiner's rejection of claims 1-83 under 35
U.S.C. § 251 relies on his allegation that claims 5-83 lack a
written description. Because we already rejected the
allegation, we are not persuaded that the appellants failed to
satisfy the error requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251. Therefore,
we reverse the rejection of claims 1-83 as lacking an error
correctable by reissue of the original patent. Next, and
last, we address the definiteness of claims 5-83.
Definiteness of Claims 5-83
We begin by noting the following principles. “The test
for definiteness is whether one skilled in the art would
understand the bounds of the claim when read in light of the
specification. If the claim read in light of the
specification reasonably apprise[s] those skilled in the art
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007