Appeal No. 2002-0283
Application 09/328,918
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim that which appellant regards as the
invention, we note that the examiner’s first concern (answer,
page 5) is whether appellant is claiming an apparatus per se, or
a combination of an apparatus and a structure. We must of course
look to the language of the claims under consideration to make
this determination. For example, independent claim 12 is
directed to “[a]n apparatus for confining vibrational energy in a
structure having a vibrating member . . .” wherein the apparatus
comprises “a vibration confinement device coupled to said member”
(emphasis added) and having an effective translational spring
constant and an effective torsional spring constant, to confine
vibrational energy to the confinement region of the structure.
Clearly this claim is directed to a combination of an apparatus
and the structure, since the vibration confinement device of the
apparatus is positively set forth as being “coupled to” the
vibrating member of the system.
By contrast, independent claim 22 sets forth “[a]n apparatus
for actively confining vibrational energy in a structure having a
vibrating member . . .” wherein the apparatus comprises “an
active vibration confinement device couplable at a location to
the member” (emphasis added), a vibration detector “disposed on
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007