Appeal No. 1997-3340 Page 6
Application No. 08/323,500
independent rotation of these units relative to one another when the binding plate (70) is
inserted between the engaging hook (43) and clamping hook (39). From our viewpoint, each
of the engaging and clamping units is capable of being rotated while the other is kept stationary
and this capability renders them independently rotatable relative to one another.
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 14-17,
20, 21, 23-28, 32 and 34-37 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The indefiniteness rejection
The examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-9, 14-17, 20, 21, 23-28, 32 and 34-37 under
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is based upon the examiner's assertion that the
above-noted limitations in claims 1, 14 and 23 with regard to relative rotation or pivoting in
opposite angular directions and in claim 6 with regard to independently rotatable pedal portions
are not supported by the appellant's disclosure and that, as such, the claims are imprecise or
misdescriptive of the invention. In view of our discussion, supra, in reversing the examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection, it should be clear that we shall also not sustain the
examiner's rejection of these claims under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. As for
the use of the term "independently" in claim 6, the fact that the engaging and clamping units
can be rotated together and, thus, have some interdependence does not, in our opinion, render
the use of the term "independent" imprecise. As discussed above, the capability of each of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007