Appeal No. 98-0353
Application 08/561,463
thereby rendering the claim indefinite where the
scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Specifically, it [is] not clear whether there are
two broad sides opposed to one another along with
two narrow sides opposed to one another, or a broad
side opposed to a narrow side, thereby rendering the
claim confusing as set forth above. In claim 4, it
is not clear in which direction the curvature is
defined on the hard edge thereby rendering the
claim indefinite, where it is not clear if the
curvature is along a longitudinal direction of the
hard edge or the curvature is perpendicular to the
longitudinal direction thereby forming a rounded
edge.
The test for compliance with the second paragraph of 35
USC § 112 is "whether the claim language, when read by a
person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
specification, describes the subject matter with sufficient
precision that the bounds of the claimed subject matter are
distinct." In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471,
476 (CCPA 1975). Considering first the language of claim 1,
we do not find the confusion asserted by the examiner. Since
the claim recites "opposing broad sides" and "opposing narrow
sides" (both plural), it is evident that more than one of each
kind of side is being claimed. This is further brought out
when the dictionary definition of "opposing" cited on page 9
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007