Appeal No. 2002-1181 5
Application 09/576,154
The second indefiniteness issue raised by the examiner is that the language
regarding “a weight distribution” in claims 1, 8, 12 and 17 is indefinite “since it is not
clear how it structurally limits the claim structure,” and how “the weight distribution
causing [sic] the container to automatically move to an upright position from a tilted
position angularly displaced from said upright position” (Paper No. 7, page 3). From our
perspective, the claim language in issue sets forth a limitation which one of ordinary
skill in the art would understand to mean that the structure of the container described in
the previous portion of the claim must have a distribution of weight which, when the
container is at least partially filled with bubble solution, causes it to right itself from a
tilted position. We do not agree with the examiner that this manner of expressing the
structure renders the claims indefinite.
The final problem under this rejection is directed to claims 15, 16, 19 and 20,
which the examiner determines are indefinite because “the additional structure sought
to be encompassed in a particular claim can not be determined” (Paper No. 7, page 3).
Independent claims 12 and 17 each recite a “tilted position” from which the container
must be self-rightable. Claims 15 and 16, which depend from claim 12, and claims 19
and 20, which depend from claim 17, add to the parent claims the further requirement
that the “tilted position,” from which the container must be self-rightable by virtue of its
weight distribution, be “at least about 30 degrees relative to vertical” and “at least about
45 degrees relative to vertical.” Thus, these claims do further restrict the limitations set
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007