Appeal No. 97-0677
Application No. 08/312,710
is positioned in a tangential plane "in close proximity" to the
tangential plane along the handling ring outer surface. Absent
such guidelines, we are of the opinion that a skilled person
would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the
claimed invention with the precision required by the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. See In re Hammack, supra.
Since the appellants' specification fails to set forth an
adequate definition as to what is meant by the terminology "in
close proximity" recited in claim 1, the appellants have failed
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as
required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention, for the reasons
explained above.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007