Appeal No. 98-0985 Page 7
Application No. 08/271,022
Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of
terms is permitted even though the claim language is not as
precise as the examiner might desire. If the scope of the
invention sought to be patented cannot be determined from the
language of the claims with a reasonable degree of certainty,
a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is appropriate.
With this as background, we find no basis for the
specific rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
made by the examiner of the claims on appeal. In that regard,
we agree with the appellants (brief, pp. 19-20) that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope (i.e.,
the metes and bounds) of the invention. In addition, with
respect to the specific objection to claims 72 and 73, we note
that parent claim 42 requires that the first and second
sections of the jointed limb brace be on opposite sides of the
joint of the limb.
The obviousness issues
Claims 42, 43 and 72-74
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007