Appeal No. 1998-1798 Page 5
Application No. 08/596,538
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner stated (final rejection, pp. 2-3) that
[t]he claims reciting the following functions/functional
languages lack recitation of sufficient
structures/elements and/or necessary structural
cooperation between the structures/elements to enable the
functions to be effected: "is thereby rotatably driven
... motor" (claim 1, last two lines) . . . "whereby ...
cartridge" (claim 17, last three lines).
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 6-8 and reply brief, pp.
2-4) that claims 1 and 17 comply with the requirements of
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In addition, the appellant
argues that the examiner has not provided a basis in fact
and/or cogent technical reasoning to support a legal
conclusion of indefiniteness. We agree.
In our view, claims 1 and 17 define the metes and bounds
of the claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007