Appeal No. 1999-1779
Application No. 08/480,561
terms “driving bearing element,” “driven bearing element,”
“means for receiving,” and “means for applying driving,” which
are present in claim 1, and “means for applying,” which
appears in claims 1 and 19, do not provide “clear elucidation”
of the claimed subject matter (see final rejection, page 3).
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to set
out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See, for example, In
re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA
1977). In making this determination, the definiteness of the
language employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a
vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior art
and of the particular application disclosure as it would be
interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in
the pertinent art. Id.
It is clear to us from the explanation provided on pages
1 through 23 of the specification, with particular reference
to Figures 1-5 and from reading in their entirety the portions
of the claims in which the phrases quoted above appear, that
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007