Appeal No. 99-0075
Application 08/719,664
An analysis of the claim 25 limitations at issue in light
of the appellant’s disclosure shows the examiner’s concerns to
be unfounded.
More particularly, pages 1, 2, 5 and 6 in the appellant’s
specification and Figures 4 through 6 in the appellant’s
drawings clearly indicate that the recitation in claim 25 that
the hydraulic vice is alternately “unlocked and locked” refers
to the condition of the vice being locked or unlocked, i.e.,
clamped or unclamped, respectively, to a workpiece. Page 8 in
the appellant’s specification and Figures 9 through 11 in the
appellant’s drawings clearly indicate that recitation in claim
25 that the pneumatic couplings are “unlockable” simply
denotes that the mating components of the respective couplings
cannot be locked together. Although the limitations in
question might have been composed to make these meanings more
apparent on the face of the claim, they nonetheless are
reasonably precise and particular when read, as they are
required to be, in light of the underlying disclosure.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007