Appeal No. 2001-2073
Application No. 09/098,799
appellant's assessment (brief, page 12) that one of ordinary
skill in the art considering the claimed subject matter in light
of appellant's specification would have no problem understanding
what structure in each of the disclosed embodiments corresponds
to the recited "means . . . for diffusing the flow of the fluid
exiting from said aperture" at the distal end of the tool
housing. On page 12 of the brief, appellant sets forth exactly
what structure in each embodiment corresponds to the "means"
clause and that understanding is supported by the disclosure of
the application. Accordingly, we conclude that the scope of the
subject matter embraced by appellant's claims on appeal is
reasonably clear and definite, and fulfills the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Concerning the examiner's additional comments relating to
dependent claim 14, we share appellant's view that "said
diffusing means" of claim 14 has clear antecedent basis in the
last clause of independent claim 13. As for the additionally
recited "means secured to said housing for focusing . . .," it is
our opinion that when the questioned language is read in light of
appellant's specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art, the skilled artisan would reasonably
99
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007