Appeal No. 96-0939
Application 07/853,221
Claim 10 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal
and reads as follows
10. A safety arming device for ordnance having an
explosive charge and a detonator, comprising a blocking disc
displaceable between safe and armed positions, a drive module
connected to the blocking disc, latch means engageable with
the blocking disc for holding the same in the safe position
and control means for limiting operation of the drive module
in response to release of the latch means from the blocking
disc to regulate displacement of the blocking disc from the
safe position to the armed position.
The sole rejection before us is a rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The examiner has rejected
claims 10 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as
the invention. The examiner states the rejection thusly:
In claim 10, lines 7-8, use of the phrase “in
response to release of the latch means” makes the
claim indefinite as to what is intended to be in
response to release of the latch means. Is the
control means intended to be operating in response
to release of the latch means? If the control means
for limiting operation of the drive module is
intended to act in response to release of the latch
means (38), it is not seen as to how this is
possible. The latch means (38) is responsible for
activating the control means of the blocking disc.
The means for limiting operation of the control
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007