Ex Parte Dart et al - Page 32


                Appeal 2007-1325                                                                              
                Application 10/065,722                                                                        
           1    5.  New Grounds of Rejection:                                                                 
           2                                                                                                  
           3                               Indefiniteness rejection                                           
           4          Claims 84, and claims 85-87 which depend directly or indirectly from                    
           5    claim 8410, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being                    
           6    indefinite.                                                                                   
           7          Our principal concern with this is Dart's use of the word "chamber" in                  
           8    the claim.                                                                                    
           9          While the word chamber appears in some of the original claims, it is                    
          10    not defined in the specification.                                                             
          11          Accordingly, we give the word its ordinary meaning.  One meaning of                     
          12    chamber is: a natural or artificial enclosed space or cavity.  Webster’s                      
          13    Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition (1996).                                                   
          14          The Waterbury mounting element is described as having substantially                     
          15    the same shape and depth as the recess into which it placed.  Thus, the                       
          16    mounting element and recess do not have to have precisely complimentary                       
          17    shapes.  Nor has Dart established that a mounting element and recess made                     
          18    by a thermoforming process would be expected to be precisely                                  
          19    complimentary.  To the extent that there is any opening between the                           
          20    mounting element and the recess in a device made by a third-party, we do                      
          21    not think Dart is entitled to infringement relief against that party based on                 
          22    the broadest reasonable interpretation of "chamber" in claim 84 and an                        
          23    attempt to maneuver the invention of claim 84 to cover devices falling                        

                                                                                                             
                10 Claims 40-43, 71-74 while not dependent on claim 84 introduce the10                                                                                           
                “chamber” as a dependent claim feature and thus are also subject to the 35                    
                U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection.                                                     
                                                     32                                                       

Page:  Previous  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013