Appeal 2007-1463 Page 13
Application 10/083,492
below the disc or base.
C. Principles of Law
1. The test for compliance is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a
particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in
light of the application disclosure as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA
1971).
2. Just because a term is broad, does not mean it is indefinite. In re Borkowski,
422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (1970).
D. Analysis
The claim is specifically drawn to a means for retaining the screws on the
plate and for connecting the plate to the disk when the base is not affixed to the
sports apparatus. In other words, the claim requires that the screws on the plate do
connect the plate to the disk when the base is not affixed to the sports apparatus.
The metes and bounds of the claim is such that it excludes all means which cannot
function as the claim provides. That is, the claim excludes means whereby the
screws on the plate do not connect the plate to the disk when the base is not affixed
to the sports apparatus. Any argument that the claim encompasses an embodiment
whereby the screws would not connect the plate to the disk when the base is not
affixed to the sports apparatus, would be reading the claim in a manner
inconsistent with the language of the claim. Having said that, however, we see
nothing in Appellants' Specification that specifically limits the means for retaining
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013