Appeal No. 1999-1765 Page 7
Application No. 08/839,193
to appellants' claim 1 to derive an understanding of the scope
and content thereof.
In so doing, we look first at the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. It is our
view that there is nothing indefinite about appellants’ use of
the terminology “the tie plate” in line 4 of claim 1. We
agree with appellants (brief, p. 5) that proper antecedent
basis for “the tie plate” can be found in line 3 of claim 1
wherein “a tie plate” is recited as being that by which the
threads of a water rod end are adapted to be received. It is
clear to us that in claim 1 appellants are not positively
defining the combination of a water rod and a tie plate, as
proposed by the examiner. In support thereof, we refer to
appellants’ brief (Paper No. 23, p. 5) where appellants argue
that the water rod “is extendible” through the tie plate, and
to their reply brief (Paper No. 25, pp. 1-2) wherein they
state that “the recitation that the water rod extends through
the tie plate must be interpreted in a manner consistent with
the specification, which supports the proposition that the
water rod is capable of extending through the tie plate.” It
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007