Appeal No. 1999-0178
Application No. 08/658,849
evidence of obviousness, as applied, each of the examiner’s
obviousness rejections cannot be sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner to consider
the following matters.
1. The examiner should consider whether the language
“substantially spherical” container (claims 1, 6, and 10),
“similar” containers (claim 7), and a “third similar”
container (claim 8) address definite or indefinite terms of
degree, when read in light of the underlying disclosure. See
Seattle Box Co. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731
F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
2. The examiner should also assess whether claim 1, in
particular, is taught or suggested by the expansion chamber 28
and harness of Meikle (Figure 1) since it appears that the
expansion chamber may fairly be said to have a substantially
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007