Appeal No. 97-2227
Application 08/254,978
supra, 427 F.2d at 1382, 166 USPQ at 208. Moreover, in order
to satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph of § 112,
a claim must accurately define the invention in the technical
sense. See In re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486,
492-93 (CCPA 1973). In addition, when determining the metes
and bounds of claimed subject matter, no claim may be read
apart from and independent
of the supporting disclosure on which it is based. See In re
Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971).
Applying these principles to claims 9-13, we do not
believe that the subject matter defined therein has been set
forth with the requisite degree of precision and particular-
ity. Specifically, in line 4 of independent claim 9 it is
unclear whether the recitation “said drive means” refers to
“rotatable drive means” (line 2) or “unidirectional drive
means” (line 3). It is also unclear what structure “unidirec-
tional drive means” (line 3) is intended to encompass. Inas-
much as this claim recites “disengage means for manually
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007