Appeal No. 97-4208
Application 08/682,393
because claim 1 is an original claim, In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d
676, 678, 185 USPQ 152, 154 (CCPA 1975), but also because appel-
lant employs the language of this recitation on page 7, lines 9
and 10 of the specification, and discloses on page 17, lines 13
to 18, that
the features and advantages of the ratchet
wrench of the present invention can be
applied to either a ratchet wrench adapted to
directly engage the first workpiece or a
ratchet wrench adapted for use with a con-
ventional socket that engages the first work-
piece.
With regard to the question of enablement, it is
unnecessary to determine whether the appellant’s and examiner’s
arguments concerning the construction of the driver member
integrally with the socket are correct, because the language of
claim 1 does not require such construction. The term “first
workpiece” in claim 1 is broad enough to include socket 12,
which, as disclosed, is engaged by driver member 20 and itself
“can be rotatably advanced about a second workpiece,” namely, can
be rotated about bolt 16. Alternatively, since claim 1 does not
require that the “annular driver member” be an integral member,
this expression can be read on the disclosed combination of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007