Appeal No. 2002-2185
Application 08/976,361
that in the absence of a fuel rod in a spacer opening, the flow
area through that opening is substantially unobstructed, as shown
in Fig. 2. Further, we likewise do not agree with appellants’
explanation (main brief, page 8) that the inclusion of a full-
length rod obstructs flow through an opening and without the rod
the spacer opening is not obstructed, and thus “the
characterization of such spacer opening as having a substantially
unobstructed flow area therethrough is disclosed in the original
specification.”
INDEFINITENESS ISSUE
We sustain the rejection of claims 12, 14, 20, 23 through
25, 27, 31, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite.
In assessing the indefiniteness issue raised in this appeal,
we keep in mind the following principles. Relative to the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the court in
In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970)
stated that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007