Appeal No. 1997-0174 Page 9
Application No. 08/302,207
since we believe the scope of the phrase as used in claim 8
can be determined from the language of the claim with a
reasonable degree of certainty. In that regard, it is clear
to us that in light of the teachings of the prior art and the
appellant's disclosure as it would be interpreted by one5
possessing the ordinary level of skill in the pertinent art,
that the phrase "sufficient torque" as used in claim 8 means
torque adequate to rotate the selector using the output of the
turbine even in the presence of sand or other contaminants,
thereby eliminating seizure of the selector. Thus, we view
the limitation in question as merely relating to breadth of
the claim, and accordingly conclude that rejection of the
claim under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is inappropriate.
5The specification (p. 6, lines 1-4) teaches that the
"reduction in angular velocity of the output drive shaft 60
advantageously allows it to provide sufficient torque to
rotate the selector even in the presence of sand or other
contaminants, thereby eliminating the seizure problem present
in prior-art devices."
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007