Appeal No. 1998-2011
Application No. 08/707,267
The above-noted disclosure on pages 5 and 6 of the appellant's specification provides
written descriptive support for the casing being formed by a succession of square U-section
rings, with the transverse widths being "equal to about" one fifth the transverse width
(diameter) of the casing. Original claims 6 and 11 (as filed in parent Application No.
08/302,620) provide descriptive support for the casing having a transverse width "about" five
times as great as the width of the legs and "the sections" being "generally rectangular."6
Further, Figure 5 provides descriptive support for the bight portions extending flatly parallel to
the axis. However, the original disclosure does not provide descriptive support for the claim
recitations of "similarly generally" square rings, bight portions extending flatly "substantially"
parallel to the axis, and the transverse width of the casing being "generally" five times as great
as the width of the legs.
The obviousness rejections
Turning now to the examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we recognize the
inconsistency implicit in our new rejection of claims 1-3, 7 and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention with a
determination as to the patentability of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Normally, when
substantial confusion exists as to the interpretation of a claim and no reasonably definite
meaning can be ascribed to the terms in a claim, a determination as to patentability under 35
6We also note that original claim 5, as filed in the parent application, provides written descriptive support
for the transverse widths all being "generally the same."
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007