Appeal No. 96-2294
Application 08/278,558
dimensional relationship is satisfied by the Hayafuji reference.
Regarding claim 10, we have entered a rejection of this
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, infra. However,
to the extent that claim 10 is understood, we reverse the 35
U.S.C. § 102 rejection thereof. We note that Figure 14 of
Hayafuji appears to satisfy the limitation in claim 10 of said
body portion being defined by an arc segment of less than 180E.
However, with respect to the unaddressed dimensional limitation,
just as with respect to claim 1, the examiner has provided little
evidence that Hayafuji satisfies this argued limitation.
Therefore, to the extent that the claim is understood, it is
clear that Hayafuji is not anticipatory thereof.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claims 10 through 12 are
rejected for failure to comply with the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112.
The test of whether a claim complies with § 112, second
paragraph, is:
whether the claim language, when read by a person of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the
specification, describes the subject matter with
sufficient precision that the bounds of the claimed
subject matter are distinct.
In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975).
We note that in the ultimate subparagraph of claim 10, the claim
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007