Appeal No. 2002-0532
Application No. 09/069,457 Page 5
(answer, page 3) that the terminology in the claims is
inconsistent with the terminology in the specification, 37 CFR
§1.75(d)(1) sets forth that the terms and phrases used in the
claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the
description. If clear support or antecedent basis is not found,
the examiner should consider an objection to the specification
and claims under 37 CFR 1.175(d)(1). Accordingly, because we
find that wall 475 extends away from housing 442, we reverse the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Turning to claim 3, the examiner questions (answer, page 3)
what appellant considers to be the housing, the housing wall, the
first wall and the second wall. Appellant asserts (brief, page
13) that claim 3 states "at least two walls for encircling
respective contacts on a lamp" and that sleeves 475 (figures 30
and 31) disclose sleeves 475 which encircle at least two walls
which encircle contacts 440 of the lamp. We agree and note that
figure 28 shows sleeves (walls) 475, 487 which extend from the
housing a sufficient distance to encircle contacts 440 of lamp
430. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
We turn next to claims 12 and 13. The examiner asserts
(answer, pages 3 and 4) that the language "housing includes a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007