Appeal No. 2000-0533
Application No. 08/821,508
claim, i.e., the tool used in step (1), rather than to a tool
used in step (2).
Claim 38, which depends from independent claim 33, is
also misdescriptive of appellants' invention as disclosed, in
that the bending step of claim 38 is recited as a step in
addition to the flaring step recited in claim 33. In
accordance with the invention as disclosed, the step of
bending the flared first end inward on itself to form parallel
flanges is the step shown in Figure 3 of pressing the special
tool 46 into the bowed or partially folded over flange 42.
This is the same step that forms the exterior and interior
conical surfaces. Thus, the bending step of claim 38 should
be recited as part of the flaring step, rather than as an
additional step separate from the flaring step.
No claim may be read apart from and independent of the
supporting disclosure on which it is based. We are thus
required to read the claims in light of the disclosure. The
result is an inexplicable inconsistency within each of claims
38 and 60, for the reasons discussed above, which renders the
claims indefinite under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. §
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007