Appeal No. 97-3003
Application 08/390,403
Claims 2, 4 and 10 through 12 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the
appellant regards as the invention.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.d. 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
In determining whether this standard has been met, the
definiteness of the language employed in the claims 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. Id.
Independent claim 11 recites the combination of (1) a
golfing aid comprising, inter alia, a second elongated
engagement element having a distal end, (2) an elongated club
shaft and (3) a putter club head. The putter club head is
defined as being “adapted for a socket-type or an over-hosel
type engagement with the distal end of the second elongated
engagement element” wherein “the distal end of said second
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007