Ex Parte Girault et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 25, 2016

12296860 (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/296,860 10/10/2008
22908 7590 03/03/2016
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
TEN SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3000
CHICAGO, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guillaume Girault
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
007035.00121 2053
EXAMINER
THOMAS, CIEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1754
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
eofficeaction@bannerwitcoff.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUILLAUME GIRA ULT and PHILIPPE CANTIN
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
Technology Center 1700
Before 1\1ICHi\~EL P. COLiUi\J'Jl'H, Ji\~CQUELINE \VRIGHT BONILLi\~,
and BRIAND. RANGE Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
38. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants 1 describe the present invention as relating to "extraction
and treatment of airborne effluents produced by electrolytic cells designed
for the production of aluminium."2 Spec. 1: 1 :5. Claims 1 and 35 are
independent. Claims 1 and 35, reproduced below, are illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. System for collecting effluents produced by a plurality of
electrolytic cells intended for the production of aluminium and
for drawing said effluents away from the cells in a flow of gas,
said system comprising hoodings to confine the effluents of each
cell, a plurality of outlet channels connected to said plurality of
cells, including a first outlet channel connected to a first cell of
the plurality of cells, to collect said flow of gas and suction
means, including a conduit that is common to the plurality of
cells and the plurality of outlet channels, such that the outlet
channels connect the plurality of cells to the conduit to draw said
flow of gas away from the cells through said outlet channels, said
hoodings each including removable hoods to get access to the
inside of the hoodings, wherein said system further comprises at
least one pipe comprising:
a first end that is directly or indirectly connected to a pressurized
air supply; and
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Aluminium
Pechiney. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this opinion, we use the spelling "aluminum" (the more common
spelling in the United States) except where a quotation uses the United
Kingdom spelling "aluminium."
2
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
a second end that is located inside said first outlet channel,
includes at least one aperture and is oriented and arranged so that
pressurized air can be projected through said aperture in a
manner that increases the rate of said flow of gas within said first
outlet channel independently of the rate of said flow of gas within
at least one other of the outlet channels.
35. System for collecting effluents produced by at least first and
second electrolytic cells intended for the production of aluminium and
for drawing said effluents away from the first and second cells in a
flow of gas, said system comprising a first hooding to confine the
effluents of the first cell and a second hooding to confine the effluents
of the second cell, a first outlet channel connected to said first cell and
a second outlet channel connected to said second cell to collect said
flow of gas and suction means, including a conduit that is common to
at least the first and second cells and the first and second outlet
channels, such that the first and second outlet channels connect the
first and second cells to the conduit to draw said flow of gas away
from the first and second cells through said first and second outlet
channels, said first and second hoodings each including removable
hoods to get access to the inside of the first and second hoodings,
wherein said system further comprises:
a first pipe comprising:
a first end that is directly or indirectly connected to a first pressurized
air supply;
and
a second end that is located inside said first outlet channel, includes at
least one aperture and is oriented and arranged so that pressurized air
can be projected through said aperture in a manner that increases the
rate of said flow of gas within said first outlet channel independently
of the rate of said flow of gas within said second outlet channel;
and
a second pipe comprising:
a first end that is directly or indirectly connected to a second
pressurized air supply; and
3
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
a second end that is located inside said second outlet channel, includes
at least one aperture and is oriented and arranged so that pressurized
air can be projected through said aperture in a manner that increases
the rate of said flow of gas within said second outlet channel
independently of the rate of said flow of gas within said first outlet
channel.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below when rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Broussard us 2,556,899 June 12, 1951
Gar denier us 3,782,074 Jan. 1, 1974
Dethloff et al. us 4,176,019 Nov. 27, 1979
(hereinafter, "Dethloff')
Duprat et al. us 4,668,352 May 26, 1987
(hereinafter, "Duprat")
Ni us 5,070,707 Dec. 10, 1991
Michaels us 5,186,793 Feb. 16, 1993
Huang et al. us 2006/000914 7 Jan. 12,2006
(hereinafter, "Huang")
Paziaud EP 0 329 498 Al Aug. 23, 1989
Amphoux EP 0 772 003 Al May 7, 1997
Girault et al. 3 FR 2 848 875 Dec. 18, 2002
(hereinafter, "Girault")
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-38 as failing to comply
with the written description requirement of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112.
3 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0289290 provides an English
translation to Girault.
4
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 16-21, 23-2 9, and
32-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of
Duprat and Amphoux.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 20, 21, 23,
24, and 34-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination
of Duprat and Broussard.
Rejection 4. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphoux or
Duprat and Broussard in further view of Gardenier.
Rejection 5. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Broussard in
further view of Paziaud.
Rejection 6. The Examiner rejected claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphoux in further
view of Girault.
Rejection 7. The Examiner rejected claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphoux in further
view of Huang.
Rejection 8. The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphroux or Duprat
and Broussard in further view of Dethloff.
Rejection 9. The Examiner rejected claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphroux in further
view of Michaels.
5
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
Rejection 10. The Examiner rejected claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphoux in further
view of Ni.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 7 based on the claims
having the limitation "that the rate of the flow of gas within the outlet
channel can be increased independently of the rate of gas flow within the
other channels" and this limitation not being found in the originally filed
disclosure. Final Act. 2. Appellants respond by arguing that this limitation
is disclosed at 14: 18-15: 18 of the Specification and is inherently disclosed
by the Specification's figures and described configurations. App. Br. 6-7.
Assessment of this issue first requires proper construction of the
claims at issue, and specifically the term "independently" in certain clauses
of claims 1 and 35. Under a broadest reasonable construction standard,
claim 1 and claim 3 5 both require that increases in the rate of flow coming
from a pipe in the first outlet happen independently (i.e., without requiring
or relying on something else or being contingent upon) the flow of gas
within other outlet channels. See WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY 612 (Merriam-Webster Inc. 1985) (defining "independent" as
"not requiring or relying on something else: not contingent .. . ");see also
Spec. 14:18-15:18. The claims' plain language does not require, as the
Examiner suggests (Ans. 16), that increased flow in one cell have "no effect
on other cells in the interconnected system."
We agree with Appellants that the Specification taken as a whole, and
particularly at 14: 18-15: 18, reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art
that the inventors had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the
6
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
filing date. Cf Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2010) (en bane) (citation omitted); see also In re Smith, 481 F.2d
910, 914 (CCPA 1973) ("claimed subject matter need not be described in
haec verba in the specification in order for that specification to satisfy the
description requirement") (citation omitted). In particular, the Specification
explains that the gas flow rate "of a cell" I "of the cell" (emphases added)
depends upon whether "all hoods (21) are in place" or whether "a tapping
door is opened." Spec. 15:3-18. The Specification is reasonably read as
referring to the hoods and tapping door of the individual cell. See, e.g., id. at
Fig. 5 (illustrating that one cell may have many hoods). Thus, the
Specification adequately describes a reason not to make increased pipe flow
rate contingent upon the flow of other channels. Accordingly, the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is reversed.
Rejection 2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 16-21, 23-29, and
32-38 as obvious over Duprat andAmphoux. Appellants only address
independent claims 1 and 35. Thus, we limit our discussion to those claims.
Claims dependent on claim 1 or claim 3 5 will stand or fall with the
corresponding independent claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Duprat teaches a system for collecting gas flow of effluents produced
by aluminum electrolytic cells. Final Act. 4; Duprat 1 :9-13. It teaches
removable cell hoodings and outlet channels (ducts) connected to the
plurality of cells. Final Act. 4; Duprat 3:31--43, Figs. 1, 2. The Examiner
admits that Duprat does not teach a pipe within an outlet channel arranged so
that pressurized air increases the channel's flow rate. Final Act. 4. Duprat
does, however, teach that effluent collection rate must be increased when
7
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
tank covers are open and teaches the use of shutters to adjust the collection
rate. Final Act. 5; Duprat 2:33-58, 5:37-46.
Amphoux does not discuss effluents in aluminum processing.
Amphoux, however, is entitled "Device for drawing off a gas through a
conduit for venting it." Amphoux discusses injecting gas through a pipe and
into a duct to "assist in the removal of gases when the normal draw of gases
is insufficient." Final Act. 5. Amphoux explains that its system has the
advantage of flexibility in that the physical characteristics of the nozzles can
be varies and the flow can be modulated according to requirements. 4
We agree with the Examiner's findings that the combination of Duprat
and Amphoux teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 35. Final Act. 4-6, 12-
15. In addition, for the reasons stated by the Examiner, we also agree that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Duprat with the
injection means of Amphoux to improve extraction rate. Final Act. 5-6;
Ans. 4. We find by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of
ordinary skill would recognize that Amphoux's technique of assisting gas
removal would improve Duprat in the same way it improves Amphoux's
embodiments. For example, Amphroux's technique could assist if Duprat's
shutter-based system provides insufficient increased suction because too
many covers are opened at the same time. Final Act. 5; Duprat 7: 6-16.
Improvement of Duprat in this fashion is no more than predictable use of
prior art elements according to established functions. Cf KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). We reach these findings and our
4 Line and page number citations to Amphoux are not provided because the
translated copy of Amphoux with line and page numbers referenced by the
Examiner is not part of the record available for our review on appeal.
8
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
conclusion based on the teachings of Duprat and Amphoux cited above and
based upon the passages of Duprat and Amphoux cited by the Examiner.
Thus, we conclude that claims 1 and 35 would have been obvious over the
combined teachings of Duprat and Amphoux.
Appellants' two arguments opposing this conclusion are not
persuasive. Appellants first argue that the cited references do not disclose a
pipe projecting pressurized air to increase gas flow rate in a single channel
independently of other outlet channels. App. Br. 8. Amphoux, much like
the Specification, teaches that it provides increased flow based on the needs
of the duct it is in and does not suggest that this depends on the flow in other
channels. Moreover, although Amphoux does not explicitly discuss its use
in one of many channels in a distributed system, the combination of
Amphoux and Duprat meets this limitation. See, e.g., Duprat Figs. 1, 2.
Thus, Appellants' first argument fails because each cited references must be
read, not in isolation, but for what it teaches in combination with the prior
art as a whole. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Second, Appellants argue that there is no rationale to combine Duprat
and Amphoux. App. Br. 9-11. Appellants state that Duprat "already
purports to achieve a superior solution for increasing the extraction rates in
an individual cell" (id. at 10) (emphasis original). Neither Duprat nor
Amphoux, however, indicate that Amphoux's technique could not substitute
for or be used in conjunction with Duprat' s shutters. Likewise, neither
reference indicates that Duprat's shutters are "superior" to Amphoux.
Appellants also argue that there is a vast difference in the scale of claim 1 as
compared to the scale of Amphoux. Id. at 10-11. Claim 1, however, has no
9
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
limitations specific to scale, and Appellants cite no passage of Amphoux
suggesting that its use is limited based on scale. For the reasons explained
above, there is ample reason to combine Duprat and Amphoux.
With respect to claim 35, Appellants also argue that neither Duprat
nor Amphoux teach the use of two pipes in two different outlet channels.
App. Br. at 11. The Examiner explains, however, that Duprat teaches a
plurality of cells, and it would have been obvious to implement Amphoux
within the ventilation of each cell. Ans. 5-9; Duprat 2:1-13, 3:31-43, Figs.
1, 2. We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion in this regard.
Appellants' argument fails to address what the combined teachings would
have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of 1-3, 16-21,
23-29, and 32-38 as obvious over Duprat and Amphoux.
Rejection 3. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 20, 21, 23,
24, and 34-38 as obvious over Duprat and Broussard. Appellants only
address independent claims 1 and 35. Thus, we limit our discussion to those
claims. Claims dependent on claim 1 or claim 35 will stand or fall with the
corresponding independent claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner relies on Duprat for its teachings discussed above.
Broussard, much like Amphroux, does not discuss effluents in aluminum
processing. Broussard is entitled "GAS REMOVING DEVICE." It teaches
a system for injecting pressurized gas into ventilating ducts to increase air
flow. Final Act. 16-17; Broussard, Fig. 1, 1 :47-53; 2:42:49. Broussard
explains that its design has the advantages, for example, of having the ability
to move its apparatus from one section of a vessel to another, removing
large volumes air in minimum time, utilizing steam or air pressure that may
10
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
already be available, being able to flexibly adjust nozzles as needed, and
being applicable to widely different duct diameters. Broussard, 1:47-53;
3: 14-20; 4: 1-4. Broussard also explains that its efficient, simple, and
rugged apparatus has no moving parts and is "capable of a wide range of
application and adjustment to particular conditions and circumstances of
use." Id. at 5:10-15.
We agree with the Examiner's findings that the combination of Duprat
and Broussard teaches the apparatus of claims 1 and 3 5. Final Act. 15-1 7,
21-23. We also agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill to modify Duprat with the injection means of Broussard
to improve extraction rate. Final Act. 17; Ans. 11. We find by a
preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary skill would
recognize that Broussard's technique of assisting gas removal would
improve Duprat in the same way it improves Broussard' s embodiments.
See, e.g., Broussard 3:55-70, 4:5-13. For example, Broussard's technique
could assist if Duprat's shutter-based system provides insufficient increased
suction because too many covers are opened at the same time. Final Act. 5;
Duprat 7:6-16. Improvement of Duprat in this fashion is no more than
predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions. Cf
KSR Int'! Co., 550 U.S. at 417. We reach these findings and our conclusion
based on the teachings of Duprat and Broussard cited above and based upon
the passages of Duprat and Broussard cited by the Examiner. Thus, we
conclude that claims 1 and 3 5 are obvious over Duprat and Broussard.
Appellants raise the same arguments with respect to the combination
of Duprat and Broussard as they raise with respect to the combination of
Duprat and Amphroux. Appeal Br. 12-16. We do not find those arguments
11
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
persuasive for the reasons explained above. Thus, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 34-38 as obvious over
Duprat and Broussard.
Rejections 4-10. For each of these rejections, the Examiner cites an
additional reference as teaching elements of dependent claims. For each
rejection, the Examiner provides rationales for why the additional reference
may be properly combined with the combination of Duprat and Amphroux
and/ or the combination of Duprat and Broussard. Final Act. 24--40. In
response, Appellants rely on arguments made for claims 1 and 3 5. Appeal
Br. 16-20. Those arguments are unpersuasive for the reasons explained
above.
Appellants also provide boilerplate argument that each of the
additional references "does not provide any reason or rationale that would
lead one skilled in the art to combine these references as proposed by the
Office Action." Id. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's undisputed
findings of fact concerning the additional references and the rationales for
combining. Cf Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693 (BPAI 2009)
(informative) (affirming where "Appellants do not present any arguments to
explain why the Examiner's explicit fact finding is in error"). We also agree
with the Examiner's obviousness conclusions and affirm the Examiner's
rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 14, 15, 22, 30, and 31.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse (1) the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1-3 8 as failing to comply with the written description requirement of
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112. We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-
38 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In particular, we affirm the following:
12
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
(2) the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 16-21, 23-29, and 32-38
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat
and Amphoux;
(3) the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 20, 21, 23, 24, and
34-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of
Duprat and Broussard;
(4) the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphoux in further
view of Gardenier as well as the rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatatable over the combination of Duprat and
Broussard in further view of Gardenier;
(5) the Examiner's rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Broussard in further
view of Paziaud;
(6) the Examiner's rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphoux in further
view of Girault;
(7) the Examiner's rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphoux in further
view of Huang;
(8) the Examiner's rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphroux in further
view of Dethloff as well as the rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Broussard
in further view of Dethloff;
13
Appeal2014-006290
Application 12/296,860
(9) the Examiner's rejection of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphroux in further
view of Michaels; and
(10) the Examiner's rejection of claim 31under35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Duprat and Amphoux in further
view of Ni.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a).
AFFIRMED
14
Notice of References Cited
*
Document Number
Country Code-Number-Kind Code
A US-
B US-
c US-
D US-
E US-
F US-
G US-
H US-
I US-
J US-
K US-
L US-
M US-
*
Document Number
Country Code-Number-Kind Code
N
0
p
Q
R
s
T
Date
MM-YYYY
Date
MM-YYYY
Application/Control No.
12/296,860
Examiner
PTAB
U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
Name
FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
Country Name
NON-PATENT DOCUMENTS
Applicant(s)/Patent Under
Reexamination
Art Unit
1700
I Page 1 of 1
Classification
Classification
* Include as applicable: Author, Title Date, Publisher, Edition or Volume, Pertinent Pages)
u MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S NINTH NEW COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 612 (Merriam-Webster
Inc. 1985).
v
w
x
*A copy of th1sreference1s not being furnished with this Office action. (See MPEP § 707.05(a).)
Dates in MM-YYYY format are publication dates. Classifications may be US or foreign.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PT0-892 (Rev. 01-2001) Notice of References Cited Part of Paper No.

Copyright© 1985 by Merriam-Webster Inc.
Philippines Copyright 1985 by Merriam-Webster Inc.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Webster's ninth new collegiate dictionary.
Based on Webster's third new international
dictionary.
Includes index.
1. English language-Dictionaries. I. Merriam-
Webster Inc.
PE1628.W5638 1985 423 84-18979
ISBN 0-87779-508-8
ISBN 0-87779-509-6 (indexed)
ISBN 0-87779-510-X (deluxe)
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary principal copyright 1983
COLLEGIATE trademark Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.
All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyrights hereon may be re-
produced or copied in any form or by any means-graphic, electronic, or mechanical,
including photocopying, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems-without
written permission of the publisher.
Made in the United States of America
11121314RMcN85
i.;_·.cu;:r-efit \-:}nt, -raont\ ~dj [i · iricurrent-, incurrens, prp. of incurrere]
i~!c8u5r~~i~li\;~~~~~~h~~\0: [M~"f/h~po~stwf\~{P, fr. L incursion-,
incursio, fr. incursus, pp. of incurrere] (15c) 1: a hostile entrance into
a territory : RAID 2 : an entering in or into (as an activity or undertak-
ing) (his only~ into the arts)
i~~c~~;:!ei~~~-;~:}{-~v;~D ~"i~~~~~~v~t;v\~·:~k;;~~~~~ (~~i~~~:}=r-~~t\3~dj
:cl,~(;)~r:~~;~~~t(~1~(~~~\-;a-sh~n\ n - in°cur•va·ture \(')in-b-v~-
in•curve \(1)in-1k:}rv, 'in-,\ vt [L incurvare, fr. in- + curvare to curve, fr.
curvus curved - more at CROWN] (I Sc): to bend so as to curve inward
i~~~~. y;'.l;~~~~e'::e fi /66i)·~eti~i~;~~r:~1);z~~~?~k~r-ig;:.,' s~arl ~~n;~
in the ear of a mammal - called also anvil; see EAR illustration
i~;c~~~ ~n~'tJ~;,; i~kb~~ ~j ~~;~~~s~~..J'fc1Ws{~~':,'~~ds~;'ft~~~i~~
I~d~~~d~\~ngdi\ nClJ~ld ~h~~~la?t ~lfnctY~ns2o~t;~tI~%;: their design
ind· or indi- or indo- comb farm [ISV, fr. L indicum - more at INDIGO]
i:.~;.l,~i~fn~idtb~f~>n fiu[~sr;,~J'~b~g 1fl~/~0 c~i~~Y cs~0~j;i(i1°fN~~6N-
FERENCE. PARLEY
in•da•gate \'in-da-,gat\ vt ·gat·ed; -gat0ing [L indagatus, pp. of indagare,
fr. indago act of enclosing, investigation, fr. OL indu in + L agere to
drive - more at INDIGENOUS, AGENT] (1623): to search into: INVESTl-
GATE- in·da-ga·tion \,in-da-'ga-sh~n\ n -in·da·ga.tor \'in-da-,gat-~r\
n
ind•amine \'in-d~-,men\ n [ISV] (1888) : any of a series of organic bases
of which the simplest has the formula C 12H 11 N 3 and which form salts
i~~d~bt~:du\i~~~~~-~~\ :djd[~E~n'Ye~~ed, fr. OF endete, pp. of endeter to
involve .in debt, fr. en-.+ dete debt] (13c) 1 : owing money 2 : ow-
i~~Jet't~:d~~~:s0~ (j6~~)'hl~ ~h:~~~~j~i~:~fi~inE: indebted 2 : some-
thing (as an amount of money) that is owed
i?~~~::;cy2 \<'~~~~~hl~~(:~ ~ ~~~9~r a~ii~~) 1%~~1i:1n°Je~!~~e of being
in°de-cent \-'nt\ adj [MF or L; MF indecent, fr. L indecent-, indecens, fr.
in- + decent-, decens decent] (IS63) : not decent; esp : grossly un-
seemly or offensive to manners or morals syn see INDECOROUS - in-
de·cent-ly adv
indecent assault n (1861): an immoral act or series of acts exclusive of
rape committed against another person without consent
i(~:~~~tg~~ft~~:>rn na ~I~~) ~~~ri:~~~h~~~~~~~:r: li'~e~~rt1o 0~e0;:·~1fe~~~
against the generally accepted standards of decency
in.Cle0ci0pher0able \,in-di-'si-f(~-)r~-bal\ adj (1802) : incapable of being
deciphered
in·de-ci·sion \,in-di-'sizh-~n\ n [F indecision, fr. indecis undecided, fr. LL
indecisus, fr. L in- + decisus, pp. of decidere to decide) (ca. 1763) : a
wavering between two or more possible courses of action : IRRESOLU-
TION
in°de-ci·sive \,in-di-'si-siv\ adj (1726) 1 : not decisive: INCONCLUSIVE
2 : marked by or prone to indecision : IRRESOLUTE 3 : not clearly
i~d~~ii!.~%1~ \j~-%~1:1~fi:~~~i~e~~?[ir::~: f~~LLi~d~~ift:~st~T;,"f:,s Lin-
~o!:'eLat~~~L~~i~~s (I~)~h11~~i~ei~1;, i~~ae~t;,'!;tf ~~l~~fl~ti~~~ to inflect -
in°de0com0pos·able \,in-,de-bm'.lpo-z~-bal\ adj (1807): not capable of
being separated into comJ?onent parts or elements
i~~~e~o;f~c?.,s,,,~·~~~r~~~rll6~21n,-~~~~~i~~~~~~ i.:%~~;::;~~-fys~~~
- in·de-co•rous·ness n
syn INDECOROUS, IMPROPER, UNSEEMLY, INDECENT. UNBECOMING. INDELI-
CATE mean not conforming to what is accepted as right, fitting, or in
good taste. INDECOROUS suggests a violation of accepted standards of
~f~~l~a~~:~~l;~~~~~~aiPJ;}~~~:~r ab~~0~f~~hl~~F~~~c~i~~s;:}~s~fc~i
procedure or l'rescribed method; UNSEEMLY adds a suggestion of spe-
cial inappropnateness to a situation or an offensiveness to good taste;
~~fe;~~T t~mr~~~ar~'!i\t~~s~eeu~~~~~~~o g;~~~e~!!eb~h!~~~ ~~Pia~~
guage t~at does not suit one's character or status; INDELICATE implies
a lack of modesty or of tact or of refined perception of feeling.
in·de•CO•rum \,in-di-'kor-~m. -'kor-\ n [L, neut. of indecorus] (1 S7S) 1
: something that is indecorous 2 : lack of decorum : IMPROPRIETY
in-deed \in-'ded\ adv (14c) 1: without any question : TRULY, UNDENI-
ABLY - often used interjectionally to express irony or disbelief or sur-
prise 2: in reality 3: all things considered : as a matter of fact
in·de-fat-i0ga.ble \,in-di-'fat-i-ga-b~l\ adj [MF, fr. L indefatigabilis. fr. in-
ciE_f('°IJ~i'r l~!:~~bi~· !! · :ei~~1;1igitl~'i~';;;1~~N~~uin:de.la?ti~g!~
~~;\t~ ~-l~~~:f:i.~~~~i;\-bie\aJ~·de0fat-i0ga0ble0ness \-'fat-i-g~-b~l-
in·de0fea0si0ble \-'fe-w-bal\ adj (1 S48): not ca!l,"ble of being annulled or
~ig;.~e~fe~~s1.i'le ~~f'.,'.;~~b1~~)adv in°de.fea·si· il·i-tY \-,fe-w-'bil-~t-e\ n
in·de·fec·ti·ble \-lrek-t~-b~l\ adj (1659) 1 : not subject to failure or
deeay : ~ASTING 2 : fr.., qi fau)~s : FLAWLESS - m0de·fec•ti·biJ.i0ty
i~i:.~~:;'.~'i?i,11-:\~1e':iw-~~~t~f\c~~jb?; i2i)k-tr~•; ~~~apable of being
maintained as right or valid : UNTENABLE b : incapable of being justi-
fied or excused : INEXCUSABLE 2 : incapable of being protected a&ainst
f,hysical attack - in·de0fen•Si•bil0i•ty \-,fen(t)-s~-'bil-~t-e\ n - m·de·
in~3;~fi~~~bl~1\~·?.?~s~:~11\' ~~J (1690) : incapable of being precise! de-
scribed or analyzed - in·de·fin·abil-i•ty \-,fi-na-'bil-at-e\ n - indefin-
able n - in·de0fin°able0ness \-'fi-n~-bal-n~s\ n - in°de0fin°ably \-ble\
adv
in·.~e!·~·!1!t~ \(')in_-·~e!;(~:-)n=>t\ adj[~ -~'J<:/_e[~'!i!'!~·,!_~·-~~_:_+ _ _!i~[~':~~!~~~!i.:;
~fri!d~1.i.~ti=~~u:d~n~ 1~~~~f.1i:!;i,~e~~~~~t~nl- i:'.1 r:umb.:r - inde in
iy~~~\i~1; integral n (ca. 1877): any fuw.::tlon w~~~e derivative is a g;~'\
in·de0his0cent \,in-di-'his-'nt\ adj (1832): remammg closed "11,
<~fruits)- m0de0his-cence \-'n(t)s\ n at tnatur;
1
,
in·deJ.i·ble \in-'del-~-b~l\ adj [ML indelibi/is, alter. of Linde/ b'. Y
;;; ~~~~~ 10 f~le~l~i~g2~at :~~: ~~~~~1t ~~;i't'b~e~~~a"sh~ !~~~-
pencil) 3 : LASTING, UNFORGEITABLE- in-deJ.i·blJ.i.ty \( )i~vedd