Ex parte VOLLENWEIDER - Page 8




               Appeal No. 1998-2179                                                                          Page 8                 
               Application No. 08/433,231                                                                                           


               or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant's                            
               specification.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                            
                       The appellant and the examiner disagree as to whether the language "individually one                         
               after the other" precludes an overlapping conveyance as disclosed by Newsome on the first                            
               conveyor.  Appellant's Figure 2 illustrates the blanks 5 being conveyed on the first conveyors                       
               14-17, upstream of the intermediate stores 18-21, in non-overlapping fashion.  Furthermore, the                      
               appellant's specification states, on page 4, that "the blank stack, serving as intermediate store,                   
               also makes it possible for the blanks, initially occurring individually one after the other, to be                   
               made into an imbricated stream" and, on page 5, that "with the provision of an imbricated                            
               formation, more blanks can be fed to the winding core per unit of time than with the provision                       
               of a blank stream with blanks arranged individually one after the other."  From our                                  
               perspective, the appellant's specification makes clear that "individually one after the other" as                    
               used in the specification and claims refers to a non-overlapping formation, a definition which                       
               appears to us to be consistent with the ordinary and customary usage of this language.                               
               Therefore, we accept the appellant's interpretation of the language "individually one after the                      
               other" as precluding overlapping.                                                                                    
                       With regard to apparatus claim 12, however, we note that this language appears in a                          
               means-plus-function clause "first conveying means for feeding the blanks individually one after                      
               the other to an intermediate store."  Consistent with the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C.  112, in                     









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007