Appeal No. 1999-2726
Application No. 90/020,635
Claims 1 to 9 stand finally rejected on the grounds that:
(1) They contain subject matter which is not described in the
specification in such terms as to comply with the enablement
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph;
(2) They are not in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Rejection (2)
Considering first the question of compliance with the
second paragraph of § 112, the examiner states on page 3 of
the final rejection (Paper No. 6) that:
The phrase "opposite ends secured to the
axially shiftable ends of the crosslinkage" in
claim 1, line 23 appears to be inaccurate since
only one end of the cross brace is apparently
connected to the crosslinkage. Similarly, the
phrase "the opposite ends of the cross brace
being coupled to guide rollers" in claim 1, line
26 appears to be inaccurate since only one end
of the cross brace is apparently connected to
the guide rollers.
We do not consider this rejection to be well taken. A
claim complies with the second paragraph of § 112 if its
language, when read by one of ordinary skill in the art in
light of the specification, describes the subject matter with
sufficient precision that the bounds of the claimed subject
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007