Appeal No. 99-0075
Application 08/719,664
[i]n claim 25, line 9, the phrase “vice is
alternately unlocked and locked.” is vague and
indefinite. It is unclear what structure the vice
means is being locked or unlocked relative to. The
claim is so ambiguous that one skilled [in] the art
could interpret the language “unlocked” as actually
moving the jaws open or, alternatively, releasing a
lock such that another moving means is then capable
of moving the jaws. The phrase “unlockable
pneumatic coupling” (claim 25, lines 5 and 7) is not
understood. This phrase appears to be contradicted
by the language “whereby the vice is alternately
unlocked and locked” (claim 25, line 9). How can a
coupling that is “unlockable” (meaning incapable of
being locked) then be recited as being “locked”?
[answer, page 3].
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.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
In determining whether this standard is 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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007