Appeal No. 1997-1409
Application 08/297,399
the only claim using reference numerals, it may be the
Examiner's point that the claims would be more consistent in
appearance without the numeral. However, this is not a
ground for rejection. The rejection of claim 7 is reversed.
Claim 8
The Examiner states that claim 8 lacks clear support in
the specification, that it is impossible to determine the
scope of the claim, and that it ambiguously recites both the
process of forming and the process of using (EA7).
We disagree. Although claim 8 is somewhat unusual, we
do not see how the process of forming and using makes the
claim indefinite. Clearly, to infringe this claim would
require both the earplug structure and the method of use.
The rejection of claim 8 is reversed.
Obviousness
Initially, we observe that Huntress is directed to an
ear coupler, not an ear plug. The conical portion, or ear
horn, 2 fits within the ear (col. 2, lines 54-55) and the
peripheral bead 5 is intended to deform and lie upon the
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007