Appeal No. 97-3196
Application No. 08/569,275
the artisan would understand this to mean that it is the
“locking device” which is “fabricated,” for that is the item
to which each of these claims is directed, and the language of
the claims does not contain further restrictions. Thus, we
also do not agree with the examiner here.
Nor do we agree that the term “adjacent” in claim 27 is
indefinite. To state that there is a flange “adjacent” to a
cage is not an inaccurate statement, in view of the
disclosure, although it is a broad manner in which to set
forth the relationship between these two components. However,
as we stated above, a claim is not indefinite simply because
its language is broad.
With regard to claim 28, the examiner’s point is well
taken, for the dependent claim sets forth the hasp holes for
the second time.
In summary, it is our opinion that indefinite language
appears only in claim 28, and therefore the rejection will be
sustained with regard to that claim only.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Claims 27-30 stand rejected on the basis that the subject
matter recited therein is anticipated by Renne. Anticipation
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007