Appeal No. 95-3566
Application No. 07/950,802
(4) claims 7 and 18 over Abanaki in view of Mecham; and
(5) claim 7 over Abanaki in view of Combrowski.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-7, 16, 18 and
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. It is the
examiner's position that the language "a range of movement"
found in claim 1 is indefinite "as to what degree or amount of
movement is implied" (page 3 of Answer). However, since it is
axiomatic that claim language must be read in light of the
specification as it would be by one of ordinary skill in the
art, we agree with appellant that the claims need not2
specifically recite a particular degree or amount of movement
of the tail pulley in order to inform the skilled artisan that
the hole in the tail pulley is sufficiently large to allow the
bolt (restraining means) inserted therein to be out of contact
with the tail pulley. This relationship between the tail
pulley and the restraining means is the focal point of the
disclosed invention. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
2 In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388
(Fed. Cir. 1983).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007