Appeal No. 96-4045
Application 08/441,984
clear that the “means for deforming” limitation of claim 22
when construed in light of
the specification can only refer to a separate apparatus for
performing the bending operation and not a bend or deformation
in the planar U-shaped blank itself. The examiner is quite
correct in stating that the “means for deforming” literally
refers to an apparatus for performing the deforming operation.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed. Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we
make the following new rejection. Claims 4 through 6, and 21
through 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failure to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
appellant regards as the invention.
In the two independent claims on appeal, we note that the
claim preamble refers to an article, namely, a one-piece
stamped door lock bracket. However, we further note that the
first paragraph of the independent claims recites a “unitary
planar blank form” which is an intermediate article and is not
present in the finished door lock bracket article. The second
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007