Appeal No. 2004-0622 Page 7
Application No. 09/875,602
the roller. In this regard, it is also unclear what is meant by “cross sectional width.”
Inasmuch as a doctor blade is a three-dimensional object, a cross section can be taken
in any number of planes, including a plane normal to the axis running through the
center of curvature of the arcuate surface and a plane parallel to such axis. Likewise, it
is not clear whether a doctor blade having an arcuate blade edge having a width within
the claimed range (2 mm to 10 mm) but having only a small portion thereof, less than
2 mm in width, which actually contacts or is placed against the surface of a printing
roller, would meet the “edge radius” limitation of claim 1 or claim 7.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would
not be able to determine from appellants’ underlying disclosure what is meant by “edge
radius” as used in independent claims 1 and 7 so as to ascertain the metes and bounds
of these claims. Claims 1 and 7 are thus indefinite. Claims 2-4, 6 and 8-11 depend
from claims 1 and 7 and are likewise indefinite.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
being based on a specification which fails to adequately disclose the invention so as to
enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and/or use the invention.
For the reasons discussed above in the new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine from
appellants’ underlying disclosure what is meant by “edge radius” and thus would not be
able to make the claimed invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007