Appeal No. 97-1025
Application No. 08/183,571
The indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 8, 10 to 15,
20 to 33, 35, 37, 38 and 40 to 44 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).
Initially, we note that claims 3, 8 and 21 have been amended
subsequent to the final rejection to delete the language which
the examiner found to be objectionable.
As to the language still at issue (final rejection, pp.6-7),
it is our opinion that the language at issue can be understood
when read in light of the disclosure for the reasons set forth by
the appellant (brief, pp. 37-52). With regard to claim 35, it is
our opinion that the phrase "at least one positioned internally
relative said gripping member connecting member connecting said
gripping member with a steering column" would be interpreted by
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007