Appeal No. 97-2725
Application 08/138,456
As correctly pointed out by the examiner, three
different surfaces are recited in the portion of claim 1
preceding the recitation of “the surface” in lines 9 and 10.
However, it is apparent from the claim language, particularly
the context in which “the surface” is used, that “the surface”
refers back to the vehicle support surface and not to any
surfaces of the primary mass. Accordingly, the lack of strict
antecedent basis in this instance does not render the claim
indefinite.
With regard to the recitation of the term “a conduit”
in line 11 of claim 1, the examiner has confused
indefiniteness with breadth. The recitation of “a conduit” in
line 11 is broad enough to read on one of the conduits recited
in line 2 or, alternatively, a conduit that is separate from
the conduits recited in line 2.
Given the foregoing analysis of the claim language, claim
1 is definite to comply with the requirements of § 112, second
paragraph, in that it defines the metes and bounds of the
invention with a reasonable degree of precision. See In re
Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
Accordingly, we cannot not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1 through 9 under the second paragraph of § 112.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007