Appeal No. 2000-2016 Page 3
Application No. 09/209,837
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 112
The examiner’s position is that the claim is indefinite because certain of the
claimed elements are described in a manner that relates them to elements that are not
positively claimed. We do not agree with this conclusion. The second paragraph of
Section 112 is directed to insuring that the public is apprised of exactly what the patent
covers, so that those who would approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent
may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and
evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d
1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). It is our view that one of ordinary skill in
the art would have no difficulty determining the metes and bounds of the invention from the
claim language as presently expressed, considering that the opening words of the claim
are “[f]or a grenade launcher . . . to be attached . . . about . . . a firearm barrel . . . an
adapter for providing an attachment to said firearm barrel” (emphasis added). We do
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007