Appeal No. 1998-1454 Page 5
Application No. 08/422,840
With regard to the lack of antecedent basis of "said
socket" in claims 10 and 14 discussed on page 3 of the final
rejection, it appears to us that the amendment to claim 10
filed March 10, 1997 after the final rejection, which has been
entered, resolves this problem with respect to claim 10. As
for claim 14, we note that "a socket" is recited in line 4
thereof, thereby providing antecedent basis for "the socket"
in lines 5 and 6 and "said socket" in line 7.
In rejecting claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, the examiner contends that words of degree,
such as (a) "a loose fitting relationship" in claim 1, (b)
"low torque" in claims 1 and 13 and (c) "substantially
perpendicularly" in claims 12 and 13, are indefinite since the
specification does not provide a standard for measuring said
degree.
When a word of degree is used the PTO must determine
whether the applicant's specification provides some standard
for measuring that degree. The PTO must decide, that is,
whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what
is claimed when the claim is read in light of the
specification. See Seattle Box Company, Inc. v. Industrial
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007