Ex Parte Rhoades - Page 4

               Appeal 2007-0924                                                                             
               Application 10/401,079                                                                       
                      Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over                 
               Wolfe in view of Official Notice.                                                            
                      The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the                    
               Answer (mailed September 19, 2006).  Appellant presents opposing                             
               arguments in the Appeal Brief (filed November 16, 2005) and Reply Brief                      
               (filed November 13, 2006).                                                                   

                                                OPINION                                                     
                                        The indefiniteness rejection                                        
                      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).  A claim may be invalid for indefiniteness if it is               
               “insolubly ambiguous” and not “amenable to construction.” Exxon Research                     
               & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371, 1375, 60 USPQ2d 1272, 1276                      
               (Fed. Cir. 2001).                                                                            
                      Appellant discloses a container (10 or 1100, for example) provided                    
               with a cap (20 or 1105, for example) and housing an expandable or                            
               extendable ribbon (30 or 1107, for example).  The ribbon 30 can be biased                    
               into the retracted position within the container by a spring 36, for example                 
               (Specification ¶ 42).   Other retraction mechanisms, disclosed for biasing the               
               ribbon 1107 into a storage position within the container, include a biased                   
               rotating pin, spring mechanisms, elastic materials in the ribbon 1107, and                   
               similar mechanisms (Specification ¶ 46).                                                     



                                                     4                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013