Appeal No. 1997-1409
Application 08/297,399
The Examiner further states that the term
"substantially" provides no standard for determining the
metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter of claim 6
(EA6).
We consider the term "substantially constant
[diameter]" to require a diameter to be constant within a
small amount of variation. For example, the diameter of the
channel member in Baum would not be "substantially
constant." Thus, we conclude that the term is definite to
one of ordinary skill in the art.
The rejection of claim 6 is reversed.
Claim 7
The Examiner states that "(40)" should be deleted from
claim 7. Appellant states that he does not know why the use
of the numeral is objectionable (Br10).
The presence of the reference numeral does not render
claim 7 indefinite. See Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure § 706.03(d) (5th ed., Rev. 14, Nov. 1992) ("The
mere inclusion of reference numerals in a claim otherwise
allowable is not a ground for rejection."). Since this is
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007