Appeal No. 97-2483
Application 08/575,830
of the claim to which it refers.” 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth
paragraph.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 7 does not define the
metes and bounds of the invention with a reasonable degree of
precision as required in Venezia. We will therefore sustain
the rejection of claim 7 under the second paragraph of § 112.
With regard to the § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 and
4, the only arguments supporting patentability of these claims
as set forth on page 12 of brief are as follows:3
In view of above citations, the disclosure in
the patent of Grote, should be compared to the
claims 1 and 4 of this present application.
TABLE 1
GROTE DISCLOSES APPLICATION CLAIMS
(see G1 et seq.) (CLAIMS 1 & 4)
Col. 1, lines 30-33; -tool No resilient member
3 The shape of the housing recited in claim 1 has not been argued as a
difference over the Grote patent. In any event, this limitation, when given its broadest
reasonable interpretation, does not distinguish from Grote.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007