Appeal No. 96-1943
Application No. 08/147,008
employed must be analyzed -- not in a vacuum, but
always in light of the teachings of the prior art
and of the particular application disclosure as it
would be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary
level of skill in the pertinent art. [Emphasis
added; footnote omitted.]
In other words, there is only one basic ground for rejecting a
claim under the second paragraph of § 112, namely, the
language employed does not set out and circumscribe a
particular area sought to be covered with a reasonable degree
of precision and certainty when read in light of the
specification.
Here, with respect to claim 1, the examiner takes the
position that a "manipulator" of any kind does not
"particularly point out and distinctly claim movable
structure" and that the claimed distance "is not structurally
established" (Paper No. 23, page 5). Additionally, with
respect to (1) claims 13 and 44 which set forth "manually
actuatable locks," (2) claim 60 which sets forth "at least one
micrometer adjustment mechanism" and (3) claim 61 which sets
forth "at least one selectively actuatable motion brake," the
examiner asserts that insufficient structure has been set
forth to "adequately describe" these recitations. Further,
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007