Appeal No. 2007-0441
Reissue Application 10/155,945
Patent 5,311,959
1 Applicant continues:
2 The plain meaning of this language that was added into
3 patented claim 1 is a contradiction and causes confusion
4 and uncertainty as to the scope of these limitations.
5
6 The Examiner essentially agrees:
7 Applicant has argued that the language added to
8 claim 1 in the Examiner’s Amendment of 28 May 1993
9 was confusing under 35 USC 112(2) thus the added
10 language made the scope of the claim impossible to
11 determine. The specific confusion being that the trough
12 cannot be both parallel and orthogonal to the two flat
13 parallel sides, the specification says nothing about the
14 two uppermost slanted surfaces being parallel or
15 orthogonal, and the two uppermost slanted surfaces, as
16 seen in the figures, cannot be parallel or orthogonal to the
17 two flat parallel sides.
18
19 The [E]xaminer agrees that the language added in
20 the Examiner’s Amendment might be confusing.
21 However, all claims, even those that may be rejected
22 under 35 USC 112(2), must be examined thus the
23 broadest possible scope is applied to the claims. For
24 claims rejectable under 35 USC 112(2) due to confusing
25 claim language, this entails interpreting the claims as best
26 as possible.
27
28 Examiner’s Answer entered 07 November 2005, pages 6-7.
29 As will become apparent later in this opinion, we have difficulty
30 accepting some of the statements as set out in the second paragraph of the
31 quote from the Examiner’s Answer.
32
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013