Appeal No. 1997-4444
Application 08/427,884
Claim breadth should not be confused with indefiniteness.
In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA
1971). The term "coupled" is broad, not indefinite. However,
"coupled" is not broad enough to read on the elements being
functionally unconnected because the control unit is claimed
as controlling the carrier assembly and the engaging assembly.
Appellant does not have to recite how the elements are coupled
in any more detail unless it becomes necessary to define over
prior art. The rejection of claim 13 is reversed.
The Examiner states that "[i]n claim 14, it is noted that
the position of the 'threaded shaft' is not defined, so that
the position and operation of the 'tensioning structure' of
claim 15 and 'compression spring' of claim 16 are unclear"
(FR3).
Again, this is a case of breadth, not indefiniteness.
The fact that the position of the threaded shaft is not
recited in claim 14 does not affect the definiteness of claims
15 and 16. Claim 15 recites that the tensioning structure is
at one end of the shaft to apply axial force to the shaft
which is a definite position and function. The same reasons
apply to claim 16. The rejection of claim 14 is reversed.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007