Appeal No. 97-0695
Application No. 08/273,466
The indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 3 to 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner determined that
[t]he term "adapted to" in claims 3 and 4 is
vague and unclear because it does not distinctly
claim the characteristics of the "handles."
It is our opinion that the "adapted to" language at issue
would be understood as merely reciting the intended use of the
handles. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed
invention have been defined with the necessary degree of
precision and particularity required by the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007