Appeal No. 1999-1460
Application No. 08/070,859
rejections before us under the first and second paragraphs of
35 U.S.C. § 112 are interrelated as sometimes occurs. See
Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1376, 58 USPQ2d
1801, 1806 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
The appellants acknowledge that “the term ‘regular aggregate
structure’ is not an art recognized term, but rather is a term
which they have formulated to describe an important structural
feature of the components of the functional element of the
invention” (brief, page 3). Nevertheless, the appellants argue
they “have provided ample description in the specification of the
meaning of the term in question” (brief, page 4). We cannot
agree.
In an attempt to support their above-noted argument, the
appellants refer to the disclosure on several pages of the
subject specification. While these disclosures reflect the
critical importance of forming a “regular aggregate structure” in
order to achieve the objectives of the here-claimed invention, we
share the examiner’s view that the specification disclosures to
which the appellants refer provide no meaningful definition of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007