Appeal No. 2001-2589 Page 4
Application No. 09/072,911
We therefore will not consider the matters listed by the appellants as issues 1
and 2 on page 4 of the Substitute Brief.
Claim 1
A device for cutting sheet material to a desired depth and angle,
comprising:
a scissors having a rearwardly positioned handle and, forwardly
positioned first and second blades defining a cutting plane and being
pivotally connected together about a pivot point for arcuate movement;
and
a planar angle mensuration device connected to the first blade
substantially perpendicularly to the cutting plane so as to be substantially
parallel to the sheet material to be cut, the angle mensuration device
having a plurality of visible radial indications thereon having an origin
positioned forwardly of the pivot point.
The Rejection Under Section 112, Second Paragraph
The examiner has rejected claims 2 and 3 as being “vague and indefinite” on the
basis that it is not clear what the “means” refers to or where it is shown. We shall
sustain this rejection.
Claim 2, which depends from claim 1, further defines the device for cutting sheet
material as having “means for moving the angle mensuration device with respect to the
first blade.” It is our opinion that structure allowing the mensuration device to be moved
with respect to the blade cannot be seen in the drawing as originally filed, and the
appellants have not directed us to where support for it is found in the original
disclosure. Instead, they have based their arguments entirely upon the amended
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007