Ex parte KATO et al. - Page 8




          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                  
                                          8                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007