Appeal Number: 2006-0974
Application Number: 10/244,336
Claim 56, which is the sole independent claim, requires
“an amplified deflection of the walls”. “The walls” are the
first (104) and second (103) wall, each of which actually is a
pair of opposing walls (figures 1B and 1C). The appellant’s
specification, however, only indicates that the first wall (104)
has a concave shape that causes an amplified second deflection
of that wall (page 12, line 15 - page 13, line 7). The second
wall (103), which preferably is opposing plates (specification,
page 11, line 23), is not indicated as deflecting.
Therefore, the meaning of “the walls” in “an amplified
deflection of the walls” is unclear. Accordingly, claim 56 and
its dependent claims 57-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
In some instances, it may be impossible to determine
whether or not claimed subject matter is anticipated by or would
have been obvious over references because the claims are so
indefinite that considerable speculation and assumptions would
be required regarding the meaning of terms employed in the
claims with respect to the scope of the claims. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). In
other instances, however, it is possible to make a reasonable,
conditional interpretation of claims adequate for the purpose of
resolving patentability issues to avoid piecemeal appellate
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007