Appeal No. 97-1439 Page 6
Application No. 08/417,981
The indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner determined (answer, pp. 3 and 8) that the use
of the phrase "the keeper defines a clearance slot between the
keeper and the bottom post" in claim 12 was vague and indefinite.
We do not agree. As correctly pointed out by the appellants
(brief, p. 4), claim 12 is reciting the rotational clearance
space (i.e., slot) provided between the lower part 44 of the
interior of the keeper sleeve 40 and the outer surface of the
bottom post 20 as shown in Figure 3. The mere fact that Figure 3
also shows a rotational clearance space (i.e., slot) provided
between the flange 54 of the bushing 50 and the lower part 44 of
the interior of the keeper sleeve 40 does not render claim 12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007