Appeal No. 2000-0075
Application 08/969,941
examiner's rejections is not based on the merits of the
rejections, but on technical grounds relating to the
indefiniteness of the appealed claims.3
In summary, the examiner's rejections of claims 1 through
22, 28, 29 and 54 through 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been
reversed. A new rejection of claims 1 through 32 and 54
through 58 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, has been
added pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
3As mere guidance to the examiner and appellants, we note
that it does not appear that the Richardson and Bethell
patents applied by the examiner disclose or teach an
additional means like that disclosed by appellants for
utilizing the force exerted by the gas under pressure for
urging a contact portion of the fourth means into sealing
engagement with the canister during charging of the gas and
sealing of the gas filling opening. During any further
examination of this application before the examiner, the
examiner should treat the various “means” clauses of the
claims presented by appellants in accordance with Sections
2181-2184 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. For
appellants’ part, it should be noted that a general argument
(e.g., as at brief, page 21) that the examiner has not
properly interpreted “the claimed invention claimed under a
means plus function format” (i.e., in accordance with 35
U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph), without specifically pointing
out what means clause or clauses are not found in the applied
prior art and why appellants believe this to be so, fails to
comply with the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(iv).
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007