Appeal No. 98-1461 Page 6
Application No. 08/335,153
The examiner determined (final rejection, p. 2) that the
phrase "partly slits the guardrail without separating the [4]
cutable member into parts" was vague and indefinite since the
function of a slit is to separate portions of a member. The
examiner takes the position (answer, p. 6) that slitting
refers to a separation, therefore the claimed phrase is
contradictory and therefore vague and indefinite.
The appellants argue (brief, p. 14) that the examiner is
reading the word "slit" too narrowly. We agree. In that
regard, it is our opinion that an artisan would have no
difficulty at all in understanding the metes and bounds of 5
claim 21. Specifically, we see claim 21 as plainly reciting
that the cutting section partly slits the cutable member, that
is the cutting section does not slit the cutable member into
separate parts. Accordingly, claim 21 sets forth the claimed
4We interpret the term "guardrail" as being "cutable
member" for proper antecedent basis in understanding this
phrase. The appellants should amend claim 21 to directly
reflect this interpretation.
5 See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151
(CCPA 1976).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007