Ex parte LI - Page 10


                  Appeal No. 1996-2163                                                                                                                     
                  Application 08/106,541                                                                                                                   

                  comprises a mouth.  Furthermore, the language “the acoustical antenna comprises means                                                    
                  to the transducer in interacting with surrounding medium” is indefinite and does not recite                                              
                  what appellant appears to intend as reflected at pages 2 and 3 of the second Reply Brief.                                                
                  There, appellant indicates that he intends the language to recite the means to mount the                                                 

                  transducer and to interact with the surrounding medium.  Clearly, there is some function or                                              
                  coupling that has not been recited in this claim.  This defect is repeated in claims 23, 24                                              
                  and 26.  In claim 24 there is no recited “the brass instrument” but the claim correctly recites                                          
                  “a brass instrument.”  We agree with the examiner that in claim 26 the language “an end in                                               
                  mounting an ultrasonic drive” is indefinite.  Likewise “the opening rim of the antenna body”                                             
                  is indefinite because there has not been established in this independent claim that there is                                             
                  any opening rim in any antenna body or any other portion of that claim.  The same may be                                                 
                  said of  “the mouth” at the end of dependent claim 28 on appeal.  Therefore, the decision                                                
                  of the examiner rejecting claims 21, 23, 24 and 26-28 under the second paragraph of 35                                                   
                  USC § 112 is sustained.  The rejection of claims 17-20, 22, 25 and 29-32 is reversed.                                                    
                           Before we turn to the individual art rejections, we observe that appellant’s written                                            
                  description in the specification continually describes the serrated edges as being “rolled                                               

                  back.”  The drawings, however, in this CIP application do not show well that the serrated                                                
                  edges are rolled back.  The best showing appears to be the depictions in appellant’s prior                                               
                  patent entitled “Serrated-Rolled Edge for Microwave Antennas,” U.S. Patent 5, 298, 911                                                   
                  issued on March 29, 1994, as the best way of illustrating appellant’s serrated and rolled                                                
                  back edges.  It appears to us that a rolled back edge flares back upon itself, that is, the                                              
                  serrated surface must change direction and tend to roll back towards the origin of the flare                                             

                                                                           10                                                                              



Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007