Appeal No. 97-2822
Application 08/455,900
We turn first to the examiner's rejection of appealed
claims 5 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. After
reviewing appellant's specification and claims 5 and 9 in light
thereof, and also in light of appellant's arguments on pages 11
and 12 of the brief, it is our opinion that the scope and content
of the subject matter embraced by appellant's claims 5 and 9 on
appeal is reasonably clear and definite, and fulfills the
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, and that they
provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to
approach the area circumscribed by the claims, with the adequate
notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more
readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection
involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and
dominance. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204,
208 (CCPA 1970). There is no confusion in our minds concerning
the scope of appellant's claims 5 and 9 on appeal. These claims
are clearly directed to a method of repositioning a drain plate
atop a conventional form of floor drain by using a specific type
of annular body set forth therein. In contrast to the examiner's
opinion, it is our view that, if anything, it is the preamble of
dependent claim 6 which should be brought into conformity with
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007