Appeal No. 2002-0532
Application No. 09/069,457 Page 6
housing wall . . . ." is unclear for the same reasons advanced
with respect to claim 3. With respect to claim 12, from our
review of the specification and drawings, we agree with appellant
(brief, page 13) that housing 442 has an internal wall 444, and
that a seal such as o-ring 452 (figure 28) seals between the
housing wall and the lamp. With respect to claim 13, appellant
does not dispute the examiner's assertion of indefiniteness and
states that "[a]pplicant proposes amending claim 13, and will not
consider this claim further with respect to the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112." We find that the language reciting "the
housing walls encircle the at least two lamp contacts" sets forth
a double recitation of the previously claimed "at least two walls
for encircling the respective contacts on a lamp," rendering
claim 13 indefinite. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 13, and
claims 14-21, which depend therefrom, is affirmed3.
We turn next to claim 22. We find that the claimed lamp
base refers to end cap 438. We consider either a separate base
or the surface of the end cap containing the contacts 440 to be
the first surface coupled to the base, as described on page 61 of
3 We are cognizant of the fact that an amendment was submitted by
appellant (Paper No. 23, filed July 9, 2001) to address problems such as
antecedent basis for language in the claims. However, because the amendment
was not entered by the examiner (Paper No. 27, mailed August 22, 2001), we
are constrained to address the claims as they stand before us on appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007