Appeal 2007-0722
Application 09/992,597
and a finger contact projection extending from the rotatable dial in a
direction of the rotational axis of the dial. Claim 34 also recites "wherein
the finger contact projection protrudes radially inwardly from a radially
innermost outer peripheral surface of the dial so that …." Appellant submits
that "this should be readily apparent from Figs. 13-15" (p. 3 of principal Br.,
second para.).
Unfortunately, the specific meaning of the claim recitation, when
considered in light of Figs. 13-15, is not readily apparent to us. We can see
that the finger contact projection (584) is disposed on an outer surface of dial
(512), but we fail to perceive how it protrudes radially inwardly from a
radially innermost outer peripheral surface of the dial. It is not clear what
constitutes the radially innermost outer peripheral surface of the dial from
which the finger contact projection protrudes radially inwardly. The
language "radially innermost" would seem to indicate the center of a circle
from which the radius emanates.
Since the interpretation given to the claim recitation is essential to
determining the propriety of the Examiner's § 102 and § 103 rejections, this
application is remanded to the Examiner in order to place on record the
Examiner's interpretation of the claim language. Also, under the provisions
of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(d), Appellant is hereby ordered to fully explain the
plain meaning of the claim recitation, and to point out where the original
Specification provides descriptive support for the claim language within the
meaning of § 112, first paragraph. Only when the meaning of the claim
language at issue is established on this record can it be determined whether
Higuchi anticipates claims 34-37, 43-47, 49-52, 73, and 74, and whether the
Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are well founded.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013