Appeal No. 96-1651
Application 07/987,186
The indefiniteness issue
We reverse the examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
The examiner is uncertain as to whether a product
per se or a process of making a product is being claimed, and
specifically refers to clauses (D) and (E) of claim 13 (Paper
No. 13, paragraph 4).
Paragraphs (D) and (E) of claim 13 are sixth paragraph
(35 U.S.C. § 112) means plus function recitations. Thus, these
recitations are construed to cover the corresponding structure
described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Read in
light of the underlying disclosure (specification, page 3), we
understand these recitations as follows.
With respect to the “metallurgical joining means” of
paragraph (D), it is clear to us that this recitation denotes a
joining structure effected by metallurgical (chemical)
interaction between the claimed intermediate member and stub
shaft of the ceramic wheel. The specification informs us (page
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007