Appeal No. 98-0584
Application 08/238,948
F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 492-93 (CCPA 1973). Moreover,
while the claim language of claims 4, 17, 28 and 35 may
appear, for the most part, to be understandable when read in
abstract, no claim may be read apart from and independent of
the supporting disclosure on which it is based. See In re
Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971).
Applying these principles to the present case, we fail to
understand how magnetic field intensity detector (i.e., reed
switches 136, 138) can be considered to "generate" an
electrical proximity signal indicating "whether or not" the
guard is within the predetermined relative proximity to the
working surface for the reasons we have stated above in the
rejection under the first paragraph of § 112. Thus, the lan-
guage in these claim, when read in light of the specification,
results in an inexplicable inconsistency that renders them
indefinite.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 32, 37 and 38 are rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt in view of Lieber.
Hewitt discloses a power tool safety device for a power tool
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007