Appeal No. 2004-1302
Application No. 09/789,757
as being of one piece construction. This being the case, the
requirement of claims 9 and 15 that the rosette is integrally
molded, co-molded or co-injected with the tray is inconsistent
with the requirement of claim 5, from which claims 9 and
15 depend, that the rosette is an “insert,” thereby rendering the
scope of claims 9 and 15 unclear.
Claim 26 calls for the rosette to have “a thickness less
than a thickness of the tray.” Claim 20 contains similar
language. In that both the rosette and the tray are relatively
complex shapes having portions of various thicknesses, it is not
clear what thicknesses claims 20 and 26 are referring to for the
rosette and tray. Thus, the scope of claims 20 and 26, as well
as claims 27-32, 34-37, 39, 40, 43-50 which depend from claim 26,
is unclear.
In addition to the above, the following terms lack a proper
antecedent basis: “the well” (claim 37, line 1), “the boss”
(claim 43, line 2), “the boss” (claim 44, line 2), “the well”
(claim 45, line 2), “the cylindrical push button” (claim 48,
lines 2-3), and “the lugs” (claim 64, line 2). The failure to
provide a proper antecedent basis for the above noted terms makes
the scope of claims 37, 43, 44, 45, 48 and 64 unclear.
28
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007