Appeal No. 97-1882 Page 5
Application No. 08/316,957
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).
In this case, the examiner determined (final rejection, p.
2) that the meaning of the term "operative" is unclear.
Subsequent to the final rejection, claims 1 to 3, 5, 11, 12, 14
and 20 were amended to replace the term "operative" with the term
"adapted." Nevertheless, in the answer (pp. 2-4) the examiner
maintained this rejection and stated that the scope of the claims
cannot be determined since the claims include recitations that
appear to positively recite the axle/knuckle.
After reviewing the claims under appeal, it is our opinion
that they define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In that
regard, it is our view that the claims under appeal are directed
to a unitary axle seal adapted for use with a knuckle and an axle
as set forth in the claims. Accordingly, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 3, 5, 11, 12, 14 and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007