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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007