Appeal No. 2000-0209 Page 14
Application No. 08/693,985
rejection of claim 10 as being indefinite is improper since it
is our view that the metes and bounds of claim 10 have been
set forth with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to
reject claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
reversed.
The examiner (final rejection, p. 3) found claim 5 to be
indefinite since claim 5 recites a second torque rod, but
there is no clear antecedent basis for a first torque rod
since parent claim 2 recites "a torque rod or other member."
We agree with the appellant's argument (brief, p. 7; reply
brief, p. 2) that the recitation of "a second torque rod" in
claim 5 is not indefinite.
We agree with the examiner (final rejection, p. 3) that
claim 2 is indefinite since the recitation in claim 2 that the
leading end of the step spring is "pivotally attached to a
hanger bracket rigidly mounted on said chassis" disagrees with
the recitation in claim 1 that the leading end of the step
spring is "pivotally attached to said chassis." The appellant
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007