Appeal No. 1997-4188
Application No. 08/373,528
consequence of our review, we make the determination which
follows.
We procedurally reverse the examiner’s rejection of
appellants’ claims for the reasons which follow.
In carefully considering the subject matter defined by
independent claims 1 and 15, we have determined that the claim
language addressing the positioning of the “opening” is not
fairly understood on the basis of the recitation of the opening
being disposed above the area wetted by fuel when the fuel tank
is “at least less than one half full” so that a “substantial
amount” of fuel will remain in the fuel tank if said opening is
not closed. More specifically, the “at least less than one half
full” claim language appears to be inconsistent with the
recitation in the underlying specification (page 8) which
recitation makes it clear that the opening is entirely above the
area of the fuel tank wetted when the fuel tank is at least half
filled (Fig. 2); this latter recitation would appear to provide
an understanding of the claimed feature of retaining a
“substantial amount” (term of degree) of fuel in the fuel tank if
the opening is not closed. A new rejection under the provisions
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007