Appeal No. 1998-2817 Application No. 08/455,366 paragraph, is appropriate. With this as background, we analyze the specific rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the examiner of the claims on appeal. Specifically, the examiner stated (answer, p. 4): All claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. MPEP § 706.03(f). There is no mention as to the length (or circumference) of the elongate elastic member. No recitation of the length makes the claims ambiguous. For example, a 1,000,000 mm elastic member extended 300 mm over three cycles would produce little or no stress in the elastic member, therefore, little decay would probably occur. However, a 10 mm elastic member extended 300 mm would be greatly over stressed and most likely would tear in half. In addition to the length, the width, thickness, and type of elastic would all produce an affect on the results. Claim 33 is ambiguous as to structure. We agree with the appellants' argument (brief, p. 7) that the claims under appeal do fully apprise those of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention claimed, and thus satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007