Appeal No. 96-0356
Application 08/163,635
involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and
dominance. In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204 208
(CCPA 1970). The inquiry as stated in In re Moore, 439 F.2d
1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971) is:
. . . whether the claims do, in fact, set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree
of precision and particularly . . . . [t]he
definiteness of the language employed must be analyzed-
not in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings
of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing
the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art.
When the language “for rotation in the second direction” is
analyzed in light of the disclosure, it clearly sets out and
circumscribes a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. As such, gears 130 and 140 of the
second drive means both rotate in a direction opposite to the
direction the first drive means rotates the first roller 96.
This is clear from a reading of the specification at pages 12-13
and Figures 2-4.
As to the examiner’s statement that claim 3 is indefinite
because it depends on a canceled claim, we agree. We note that
appellants has made no argument regarding this portion of the 35
U.S.C. § 112 rejection. As such we are constrained to affirm the
rejection as it is directed to claim 3. However, we will not
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007