Appeal No. 95-1727
Application No. 07/966,876
and the respective viewpoints of appellant and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
The indefiniteness issue
We reverse the rejection of claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
We understand the examiner’s concern that the language “the
surface of said indentation” in both claims 3 and 11 is
indefinite in that it lacks proper antecedent basis.
However, when we read this language in the context of the
underlying disclosure (specification, page 10, lines 4 through
9), we reach the conclusion that the metes and bounds of the
claimed subject matter are determinate. More specifically, as
indicated in the referenced portion of the specification, the
lamination, to include not only the recited centrally located
generally circular indentation but also a plurality of
circumferentially spaced openings defining a plurality of
circumferentially spaced slots.
3In our evaluation of the applied patents, we have
considered all of the disclosure thereof for what it would have
fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boe,
355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966). Additionally,
this panel of the board has taken into account not only the
specific teachings, but also the inferences which one skilled in
the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the
disclosure. See In re Preda 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344
(CCPA 1968).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007