Appeal No. 97-2734
Application 08/394,067
through 9 of their brief, it is our opinion that the scope and
content of the subject matter embraced by appellants' claims
on appeal is reasonably clear and definite, and fulfills the
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, that they
provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to
approach the area circumscribed by the claims, with the
adequate notice demanded by
due process of law, so that they may more readily and
accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and
evaluate the
possibility of infringement and dominance. See In re Hammack,
427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). Given the
clear description on pages 5 and 7 of appellants'
specification concerning the operation of the movable handgrip
therein and the nature of the dynamic support it provides, we
are unable to agree with the examiner that the term "dynamic"
is in any way "vague and confusing as to its meaning" (answer,
page 4). Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner's
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007