Appeal No. 97-1646
Application 08/080,890
We do not consider that there is any confusion about what claim 2
covers, particularly when it is read in light of the
specification, as it must be. In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396,
186 USPQ 471, 476 (CCPA 1975).
(c) The examiner considers claims 6 and 9 to be indefinite
in that the terms “the cutter” in claim 6 and “the means for
remotely forcing” in claim 9 lack clear antecedent basis. Also,
“claim 6 is a method claim but it is unclear what additional
methods [sic] steps are being recited” (answer, page 6). Since
the appellants did not address these grounds in their brief, the
rejection will be sustained as to claims 6 and 9.
(d) The final basis for the § 112 rejection is (answer,
page 6, original emphasis):
Claim 8 is vague and indefinite and is of undue
breadth since only a single means is positively
recited, i.e., “a means for...positioning”.
The examiner further elaborates on page 12 of the answer that:
The “cutting means” and “the means for remotely causing
the cutting means to pass through the block of
propellant” are not positively recited. Therefore, the
claim is a single means claim which is vague and
indefinite and of undue breadth.
We will not sustain this ground of rejection. Claim 8
recites three means, i.e., “a means for remotely positioning,” “a
cutting means” and “a means for remotely causing.” While the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007