Appeal No. 2002-1908
Application 09/097,013
delivering them” (specification, page 1). Representative claim 1
reads as follows:1
1. An apparatus useful for aligning parts, comprising:
a part-holding chamber for accommodating a number of chip
parts, said part-holding chamber having a bottom having an inner
surface;
at least one chute groove formed at least in the inner
surface of the bottom of said part-holding chamber and acting to
orient chip parts in a given direction and cause them to slide
successively downward, said at least one chute groove having a
depth;
a gate port formed at the lower end of said at least one
chute groove and permitting said chip parts sliding downward in a
given posture along said chute groove to pass one by one;
at least one discharge passage for aligning the passed chip
parts in a line and discharging said parts; and
a clogging-removing means movably positioned in said part-
holding chamber, the clogging-removing means including first and
second portions positioned to move adjacent to said gate port,
the first and second portions having at least one leading edge,
at least one trailing edge, and a gap separating the at least one
leading edge and the at least one trailing edge, the length of
the gap being greater than the at least one chute groove depth,
the clogging-removing means for urging any chip part that is
halted in said gate port in an abnormal posture toward a
1 The terminology in claims 1 and 10 defining the clogging-
removing means as including a “leading edge,” a “trailing edge”
and a “gap” has no antecedent basis in the descriptive portion of
the specification as required by 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1). Consistent
with the explanation advanced on pages 2 and 3 in the main brief
and with the further definition of the clogging-removing means in
dependent claim 3 as comprising plural claw portions, we
understand the subject terminology in claims 1 and 10 as being
readable on the appellants’ disclosure of adjacent claw portions
11b on rotary drum 11. Given this interpretation, and the
language in parent claim 3, the references in dependent claims 5
and 6 to “at least one claw” are somewhat discordant. These
informalities should be corrected in the event of further
prosecution.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007