Appeal No. 97-0754 Page 7
Application No. 08/408,478
are unable to determine what corresponding structure, material,
or acts described in the specification correspond to this means
clause.
Since the appellant's specification fails to set forth an
adequate disclosure indicating what structure corresponds to the
means-plus-function language used in claim 1, the appellant has
failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
invention as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection:
Claims 1, 2 and 12 through 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention, for
the reasons explained above. In addition, we note that the
subject matter recited in claims 2 and 15 fails to clearly
indicate that the limitations thereof are restricting the "means
for engaging" recited in parent claim 1.
Next we turn to the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007