Appeal 2007-0924
Application 10/401,079
ordinary skill in the art would understand a "retracting mechanism" as used
in the claims to be a means or device for retracting the expandable structure.
Moreover, Appellant's use of the term "mechanism" to include an elastic
material is not inconsistent with the ordinary and customary usage of the
term "mechanism," which includes "any system or means for doing
something" (Webster's New World Dictionary 880 (David B. Guralnik ed.,
2nd Coll. Ed., Simon & Schuster, Inc. 1984)).
In light of the above, we conclude that claims 2, 5 and 17 are not
"insolubly ambiguous" and are "amenable to construction." It follows that
they are not invalid for indefiniteness. The rejection cannot be sustained.
The Anticipation Rejection
The issue presented to us is whether Wolfe teaches "a means for
storing objects and a means for enclosing the storing objects means wherein
one of the storing objects means and the enclosing means defines an internal
space in which the expandable structure can be manipulated" as required by
claim 16 (App. Br. 14). This issue turns on whether claim 16, by using
means-plus-function language, requires that the "internal space" defined by
one of the storing objects means and the enclosing means is separate from
the compartment where the objects are stored (App. Br. 14).
In essence, Appellant's position appears to be that, as seen in
Appellant's Figures 2, 8 and 11, each of the spaces (annular chamber 17,
ribbon housing 25 and compartment 1109) in which Appellant's ribbon is
stored is separate from the portion of the container or cap in which the
contents of the container are retained (Reply Br. 7). Accordingly, Wolfe's
hollow cover member 22b, which defines only a single internal compartment
for storing label 20b that is not separate from a compartment for storing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013