Appeal No. 97-1646
Application 08/080,890
cutting blades to pass through the block of energetic material”
in claim 1, lines 8 and 9.
We do not regard this language as indefinite. A statement
such as “causing the cutting blades to pass through the block” is
generic to any situation where there is relative movement between
the cutting blades and the block. The blades are no less caused
to move through the block because the block is moved (as in
appellants’ disclosed apparatus) than they would be if the blades
were moved.
(b) The examiner finds the “means for moving said aligned
block” recited in lines 6 to 9 of claim 2 to be confusing because
“it appears to be the same previously recited ‘remotely
controlled means for positioning ... said retainer’” (answer,
page 6). We do not agree. The “means for moving” in claim 2 is
not recited as being in addition to the “remotely controlled
means” recited in parent claim 1, but rather is claimed as a
component thereof. Thus, claim 2 recites (numbers in brackets
added):
2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the means
for remotely positioning the block of energetic
material between the cutter and the retainer comprises
[1] a carousel ... , and [2] a means for moving said
aligned block ....
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007