Appeal 2006-2714
Application 10/228,898
OPINION
The first issue before us is whether dependent claim 7 is indefinite.
The Examiner contends that claim 7 appears to be directed to a method of
assembly or forming the drywall sanding device and thus does not further
limit the claim from which it depends, namely, claim 5, which is directed to
a drywall sanding device (Final Rejection 2). Appellant, on the other hand,
points out that claim 7 does not recite any steps of assembling and contends
that claim 7 specifies that the sanding pad is V-shaped and that the V-shaped
configuration of the sanding pad is not dependent on the support structure or
carrier (Br. 12).
The legal standard for definiteness is whether a claim reasonably
apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. See In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d
1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In determining
whether this standard is met, the definiteness of the language employed in
the claim must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of the
teachings of the prior art and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill in the
pertinent art. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193
(CCPA 1977).
The claim language at issue in claim 7 is “wherein the V-shaped
sanding pad is configured to assume the V-shape and assumes the V-shape
prior to being secured to the V-shaped carrier.” Appellant’s Specification
describes the sanding pad 12 as assuming “a generally V-shape” and as
being “reinforced along the central area thereof” by a reinforcing corner
member 46 of “a V-shaped or L-shaped configuration” secured by glue,
adhesive, or other suitable means, to the interior corner 44 of the pad
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013