Appeal No. 1998-3402 Page 5
Application No. 08/190,929
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 as being indefinite
since there was no structural difference between the two
claims (answer, p. 4). We do not agree for the following two
reasons.
First, we agree with the appellants' position set forth
in the brief (pp. 5-6) and the reply brief (p. 1) that claims
4 and 5 are structurally different. In that regard, the
"adapted to" language used in each of claims 4 and 5 is a
structural limitation, not merely a description of how the
chamber is used. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d at 958-59, 189
USPQ at 151-52.
Second, even if the examiner would have been correct that
claims 4 and 5 were redundant (i.e., no structural
difference), we fail to find any basis for a rejection under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 since each claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007