Appeal No. 96-2094
Application 08/282,783
evaluating a claim for compliance with the second paragraph of
§ 112, the content of the claim 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. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1016,
194 USPQ 187, 194 (CCPA 1977).
In that light, in this particular case we believe that
one of ordinary skill in the art viewing the applied prior art
and appellant’s disclosure, would understand the scope of
appellant’s independent claims 12 and 13. While the examiner
makes much of the language “a distance between the cable
connector and the lever axis” found in claim 12 and the
similar language appearing in claim 13, we are convinced that
the ordinarily skilled artisan would understand this
terminology to be a reference to the
variable distance separating the lever shaft 3 and cam
follower 16 as the lever moves through its stroke.
Similarly, the examiner’s contention that the presence of
the terms “pivotable” in claim 12 and “movable” in claim 13
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007