Appeal No. 96-2294 Application 08/278,558 dimensional relationship is satisfied by the Hayafuji reference. Regarding claim 10, we have entered a rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, infra. However, to the extent that claim 10 is understood, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection thereof. We note that Figure 14 of Hayafuji appears to satisfy the limitation in claim 10 of said body portion being defined by an arc segment of less than 180E. However, with respect to the unaddressed dimensional limitation, just as with respect to claim 1, the examiner has provided little evidence that Hayafuji satisfies this argued limitation. Therefore, to the extent that the claim is understood, it is clear that Hayafuji is not anticipatory thereof. Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), claims 10 through 12 are rejected for failure to comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The test of whether a claim complies with § 112, second paragraph, is: whether the claim language, when read by a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the specification, describes the subject matter with sufficient precision that the bounds of the claimed subject matter are distinct. In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975). We note that in the ultimate subparagraph of claim 10, the claim 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007