Appeal No. 97-1119
Application 08/285,219
The claims on appeal (except claim 22) are reproduced in the
appendix to appellants' brief.2
The reference on which the rejection is based is:
Piening 4,262,867 Apr. 21, 1981
Claims 16 to 22 stand finally rejected as unpatentable over
Piening, under 35 USC § 103.
Rejection under 37 CFR 1.196(b)
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(b), claims 16 to 22 are rejected
for failure to comply with the second paragraph of 35 USC § 112.
The purpose of § 112, second paragraph, is
to provide those who would endeavor, in future
enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the
claims of a patent, 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 infringe-
ment and dominance.
In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA
1970). The test for compliance is
whether the claim language, when read by a person of
ordinary skill in the art in light of the specifica-
tion, describes the subject matter with sufficient
precision that the bounds of the claimed subject matter
are distinct.
In reviewing the application, we note an apparent discrepancy between2
Fig. 3B and the specification. On page 22, lines 6 to 13, appellants indicate
that the platform is oriented to give a net forward thrust, but in Fig. 3B the
"net thrust" vector is shown as being in the opposite direction to the
platform's direction of travel. Also, the convex end cap recited in claim 21
is not shown in the drawings. 37 CFR 1.83(a).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007