Appeal No. 1999-0368
Application 08/636,033
of a knuckle as opposed to a non-functioning part. For this
reason, the meaning of the term “functioning parts” in line 4
of claim 1 is unclear.
Finally, it is not clear how close in function and/or
operation a particular knuckle part must be to its AAR
Standard counterpart in order for that particular part to be
substantially the same as its AAR Standard counterpart.
Therefore, the meaning to the term “substantially the same as
those of an AAR Standard knuckle” in lines 4-5 of claim 1 also
in unclear.
Remand
In addition to the foregoing, this case is remanded to
the examiner for consideration of the following matter.
In the event appellants, in response to our new
rejection, amend claim 1 or present a claim modeled thereon
that satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, such that the examiner can accurately determine the
metes and bounds thereof, the examiner should consider whether
the teachings of Packer, when considered in combination with a
present day coupler and knuckle designed in accordance with
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007