Appeal No. 2005-0289 Page 4
Application No. 09/491,841
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant's arguments
set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we reverse. We
begin with the rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 16-18,
20, 22-26, 29, 30 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976). The examiner's position
(answer, page 3) is that the band shaped coupling element is not
attached to the base, but rather is part of the base.
Specifically, the examiner relies upon the language of pages 17
and 18 of the specification that the base 4 comprises the band
shaped contact element 10 and the elastic part 22. The examiner
concludes, (id.) that the band is part of the base, not attached
to it.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007