Appeal No. 96-4149
Application 08/276,436
7 as being anticipated by Horvath, and claim 6 as being
anticipated by Mayr, as is apparent from the previous
paragraph, normally a
claim whose scope is indeterminate will not be analyzed as to
whether it is patentable over the prior art, since to do so
would of necessity require speculation with regard to the
metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Nevertheless,
with respect to the anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 5
and 7 based on Horvath and claim 6 based on Mayr, we are of
the opinion that these rejections cannot be sustained on the
basis of those portions of the claims that are understandable.
Considering the anticipation rejection based on Horvath,
each of appealed claims 1 to 5 and 7, in one form or another,
requires that the strap-like member be fastened to the
bracket. Since the strap-like member 1 and brackets 2 of4
Horvath are not fastened to each other, but are instead merely
4Consistent with appellant’s specification and claims, we
interpret the terminology of the claims calling for the strap-
like member to be fastened to the bracket as meaning that
strap-like member is directly fastened to the bracket.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007