Appeal No. 96-4144 Page 5
Application No. 08/169,019
with a reasonable degree of certainty, a rejection of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is appropriate.
The examiner's statement of this rejection (answer, pp. 3-4)
is
[r]egarding claims 1, 3, 8, and 9, the phrase "roller means
movable on the sloping surface" is indefinite - either the
roller means moves along the sloping surface or it doesn't
and not may be. . . . Regarding claim 2, it is not clear
whether "a sloping surface" on line 2 is the same "sloping
surface" recited on line 4 of claim 1.
For the reasons set forth by the appellant (brief, pp. 14-
15), we conclude that the claims are definite since the scope of
the claims would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in
the art. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "roller means movable on
the sloping surface" is definite since it accurately describes
the relationship between the appellant's rollers 160, 162 and
their respective sloping surfaces 34, 54. That is, the rollers
160, 162 are movable on their respective sloping surfaces 34, 54
when (1) a circuit panel is inserted between the rollers 160, 162
and their respective front vertical surfaces 28, 48, and (2) the
stem (i.e., pin 170) is moved upwardly to release the circuit
panel. Otherwise, the rollers 160, 162 do not move on their
respective sloping surfaces 34, 54. Regarding claim 2, it is our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007