Appeal No. 95-4134
Application 08/099,090
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 1 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
After reviewing appellant's specification and independent
claim 1 in light thereof, and also in light of appellant's
arguments on pages 5 through 8 of the brief, it is our opinion
that the scope and content of the subject matter embraced by
appellant's claims on appeal is reasonably clear and definite,
and fulfills the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, that they provide those who would endeavor, in
future enterprise, to
approach the area circumscribed by the claims, with the
adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they
may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of
protection involved and evaluate the possibility of
infringement and dominance. See, In re Hammack, 427 F.2d
1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). These claims are clearly
directed to an insert (e.g., as seen at 10 in Figures 1 and 8
of the application drawings), which insert is, at least in
part, defined by having its tongue portion (42) dimensioned so
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007