Appeal No. 2001-2073
Application No. 09/098,799
first paragraph, as being directed to a non-enabling disclosure
will not be sustained.
Turning to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note that the
examiner's first concern (answer, page 6) seems to be that the
independent claims on appeal each recite "means coupled to said
housing for forcing the fluid through said central axis of said
housing and out said aperture." The examiner considers that such
recitation is indefinite "because it is unclear how fluid can be
forced through a central axis," since "[a]xis is defined as a
line of symmetry." While the language of the claims on appeal is
not the model of clarity, we nonetheless are of the opinion that
one of ordinary skill in the art reading appellant's claims in
light of the specification would know exactly what appellant
intends by the above-noted language. Our review of the
specification reveals that the recited "means" clause refers to
the fluid supply (68) or (88) seen in Figures 3, 5 and 8 of the
application drawings, which fluid supply is coupled to the
proximal end of the tool housing and will force fluid through the
hollow tool shaft (36) or (100) along the central axis of the
shaft and out the aperture at the distal end of the hollow shaft.
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007