Appeal No. 2004-1977 Page 3
Application No. 09/297,256
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 41 and 43) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
We turn our attention first to the rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
Naumann. Independent claim 1 recites an extinguishing medium source consisting
essentially of a long tube. After reading the positions of the examiner and appellant, it is
apparent to us that the appeal of this rejection cannot be decided without first
determining the meaning of “long” as used in the claim. When a word of degree is
used, such as the term "long" in claim 1, it is necessary to determine whether the
specification provides some standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box
Company, Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568,
573-74 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In this case, we find such a standard on page 6 of appellant’s
specification, which states that
the length of the tube 2 may vary from the described one. In
the application of the invention for extinguishing a fire in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007