Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 9
Application No. 08/705,592
because wood fragments produced by a chipper have smooth
surfaces that tend to stick together and prevent the necessary
flow of water through the bag. Accordingly, we understand the
claims as encompassing wood fragments having a roughness
similar to that produced by a hammer-mill process and
excluding wood fragments having a surface smoothness similar
to that produced by a chipping process. Thus, we conclude
that the claims under appeal do set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. 2
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 6, 7, 9 to 17 and 19 to 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The obviousness rejection based upon Stacy
2With regard to claim 9, we note that the term "smaller"
should be "larger" for consistency with the original
disclosure and the earlier recitation in claim 9 that the wood
fragments are "large enough not to pass through a separation
screen."
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007