Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
as in its commonly accepted technical sense. In re Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 590, 170 USPQ
330, 333 (CCPA 1971). The examiner has given us no indication that the artisan would
not have reasonably understood the meaning of the terms smoothly, continuously and
gradually in the context of the disclosed invention and the prior art as required by the
earlier noted case law. To avoid edge defraction and spatial irregularities, the surfaces of
the acoustic antenna must be smooth and continuous, that is, not disjointed, and gradually
changing in shape rather than changing shape abruptly according to the nature of the
disclosed and claimed invention. To the extent the examiner’s concerns indirectly relate to
the breadth of the claims, it is to be noted that breadth is not equated with indefiniteness.
See In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
As to the examiner’s concerns with respect to claim 19, the claim simply states that
both the body and skirt comprise their own respective radii of surface curvature.
Therefore, there is no antecedent basis problem contrary to that alleged by the examiner at
page 7 of the Answer. In accordance with our earlier noted reversal of the enablement
rejection of this claim, the “a predetermined number” of derivatives is easily determinable
based upon the mathematical functions under which the curvature is defined, where the
claim indicates that “the radii and derivatives of the radii are smooth and continuous
across the rim.”
On the other hand, the separate rejections of claims 21, 23, 24 and 26-28 are
sustained. The language “the transducer” has, as noted by the examiner, no proper
antecedent basis because of the use of the article “the” in claim 21. Overall, this claim
mounts a transducer at the mouth of the antenna body, where the body of claim 20 further
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007