Appeal No. 1998-0046 Page 9
Application No. 08/357,320
art that, as of the filing date of the application, the
invention was directed to a cutter having cutter elements
comprising "cutting edges which extend substantially parallel
to said axis."
For the foregoing reasons, the appellant's original
disclosure does not provide support for the invention as now
claimed.
Considering now the rejections of claims 1 through 6, 9
and 10 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103, we have carefully
considered the subject matter defined by these claims.
However,
for reasons stated supra, no reasonably definite meaning can
be ascribed to certain language appearing in the claims. As
the court in In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494,
496 (CCPA 1970) stated:
[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging
the patentability of that claim against the prior
art. If no reasonably definite meaning can be
ascribed to certain terms in the claim, the subject
matter does not become obvious --the claim becomes
indefinite.
In comparing the claimed subject matter with the applied
prior art, it is apparent to us that considerable speculations
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007