Appeal No. 2006-1612 Page 6
Application No. 10/153,376
claim language is definite and clear in view of Figures 5A and 5B. (Appellant’s
Brief, p. 6).
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim
is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs,
Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted). We understand claims 1 and 5 to require that the female profile is only
“partially cylindrical” through an angle of greater than 180 degrees. With this
understanding, we do not see how an interruption of the cylindrical portion of the
female profile would be inconsistent with the claim limitation, because the
cylindrical portion would still be “partially cylindrical” through the 180 degree
angle. Further, we find that the specification clearly describes on page 5, lines 12-
28 the embodiment of Figures 5A and 5B, which is claimed in claims 4 and 8. As
such, it would be clear to those skilled in the art in light of the specification what is
intended to be claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4
and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
In the rejection of claims 5 and 6 as being anticipated by Singhal, the
examiner has determined that Singhal discloses each and every element of the
claimed invention. The examiner considered the hollow rods (2) of Singhal to be
capable of being collapsed. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4).
The appellant contends that Singhal discloses the diameter of the male
profile elements being distinctly smaller than the diameter of the grooves of the
female
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007