Appeal No. 1997-3090
Application 08/309,280
some flexing of the shaft without a surface of the shaft
contacting another surface and to limit deflection of the
shaft to the gap within the opening to protect against severe
deflection of the shaft.
The Examiner relies on no prior art in the rejection of
the claims under appeal.
Claims 5 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants
regard as their invention.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful consideration, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 5 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as
their invention.
Analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, should
begin with the determination of whether claims set out and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007