Ex parte DOUCHE et al. - Page 5

          Appeal No. 1996-2972                                       Page 5           
          Application No. 07/928,784                                                  

          "...it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the                   
          phrase are part of the claimed invention or not, and the                    
          resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and                    
          bounds of the patent protection desired."                                   
               We recognize that the recited permissive phrase "may" as               
          utilized in claim 1 does not require the limitation that                    
          follows must occur; i.e., that one of the molds is stationary               
          while the other of the two molds is moving.  However, such                  
          breadth does not equate with indefiniteness.  See In re                     
          Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970).  From            
          our reading of appellants' specification, including the                     
          claims, and the relevant prior art, it is clear to us that                  
          appellants are correct in asserting, in essence, that one mold              
          need not be stationary while the other moves (brief, page 11).              
          Accordingly, we shall not sustain the examiner*s rejection of               
          the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C.                                         
           112, second paragraph on the above-noted basis.                           
               However, our ultimate disposition of the examiner's 35                 
          U.S.C.  112, second paragraph rejection of claim 3, as well                
          as the claims depending therefrom (i.e., claims 4, 5, 13-15,                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007