Appeal No. 2000-2230 Page 8
Application No. 08/706,767
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by the
examiner of the claims on appeal. The examiner determined
(answer, p. 3) that the recitation of the phrase "without a
downwardly depending wick" in claims 15 and 25 was indefinite
since the phrase has not been described in the specification
in such full, clear, concise and exact terms.
We do not agree with the examiner's determination that
the phrase "without a downwardly depending wick" in claims 15
and 25 is indefinite. In that regard, the scope of the phrase
(i.e., the metes and bounds thereof) is clearly determinable
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
Furthermore, while the exact phrase has not been described in
the specification, the specification as a whole (see
especially lines 1-2 of page 2) clearly teaches that the
appellants' invention is a thermosyphon radiator which does
not utilize a downwardly depending wick as was done in the
prior art (see Figure 3 of Scurrah and the discussion thereof
on page 1 of the appellants' specification).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007