Appeal No. 2002-0532
Application No. 09/069,457 Page 7
the specification. We agree with appellant (brief, page 14) that
the claimed contact sleeve is sleeve or wall 475 (figure 28).
With respect to the limitation "a lamp sleeve coupled to the
contact sleeve . . ." Appellant directs our attention to page
64, lines 25 and 26 of the specification. From our review of
page 64 of the specification, we find that adapter 432 surrounds
and protects the lamp, but is not coupled to the contact sleeve.
Rather, adapter 432 is integral with the contact sleeve . In
addition, we agree with the examiner that "the wall" lacks
antecedent basis. We are not persuaded by appellant's assertion
(reply brief, page 6) that “the Examiner does not dispute that
the structure is found in the specification, but only that the
term ‘sleeve’ as it relates to item 475 is used at the same time
as the terms ‘jacket or cylindrical wall’.” The fact that the
specification uses alternative terms to refer to a particular
component of appellant's invention does not establish a
conclusive presumption that interchanging the terms will result
in a claim that particularly points out and distinctly claims
appellant's invention. Although we believe that appellant is in
fact referring to a contact sleeve, the examiner is technically
correct that referring to "the wall" without antecedent basis for
the term in the claim, renders the claim indefinite.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007