Appeal No. 1999-0956
Application No. 08/584,084
We do not share the examiner’s concerns in this matter.
While we appreciate that the structures disclosed in the
specification that correspond to the above mentioned “means”
share certain common elements,2 there is no per se rule
prohibiting what is, in effect, the double recitation of such
common elements. Palmer v. United States, 423 F.2d, 316, 320,
163 USPQ 250, 253, adopted 165 USPQ 88 (Ct. Cl.), cert. denied,
400 U.S. 951 (1970)(“[D]ouble recitation of elements of
combination inventions does not necessarily render a claim vague
and indefinite, particularly if the claim is drafted in terms of
means clauses under 35 U.S.C. § 112, or if an element performs
more than one function or overlapping functions.”) See also, In
re Knowlton, 481 F.2d 1357, 1368, 178 USPQ 486, 494 (CCPA 1973);
In re Kelley, 305 F.2d 909, 914, 134 USPQ 397, 401 (CCPA 1962).
We also appreciate that claim 48 does not state when the
leading end section faces in the first direction, and when it
faces in the second direction in the course of being flipped.
However, we do not agree with the examiner that this circumstance
renders the claimed subject matter unascertainable. Instead, the
claim is simply broad, which is not to be equated with
2For example, stopping element 156 is involved in both the
folding and flipping of the carrier form.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007