Appeal No. 95-4860
Application No. 08/044,923
paragraph of § 112, a claim must accurately define the
invention in the technical sense. See In re Knowlton, 481
F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 492-93 (CCPA 1973). Here,
parent claim 18 does not accurately define the invention in
the technical sense inasmuch as the second pressure plate
cannot be considered to be threadably coupled to the third end
of the second shaft for the reasons stated above with respect
to the rejection of this claim under the first paragraph of §
112.
In summary:
The examiner’s rejections of (1) claims 12-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, (2) claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) and (3) claims 13-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are all
reversed.
New rejections of claims 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first and second paragraphs, have been made.
Any request for reconsideration or modification of
this decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
based upon the same record must be filed within one month from
the date of the decision (37 CFR § 1.197). Should appellant
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007