Appeal No. 2005-1349 Page 2
Application No. 10/079,686
BACKGROUND
The appellants' invention relates to a pulsation dampener and particularly to an
apparatus that reduces the effect of pulsations of liquid/gas flow in a
hydraulic/pneumatic system that includes a pumping device (specification, p. 1). A copy
of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants' brief.
Claims 1 to 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
the appellants regard as the invention.1
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(mailed September 2, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to the brief (filed April 26, 2004) and reply brief (filed October 8, 2004) for
the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
1On page 3 of the final rejection, the examiner stated that "[t]he claims are still
not structurally sufficient to enable one to make and/or use the invention." We note that
no rejection under the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
before us in this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007