Appeal No. 1998-2418
Application No. 08/686,883
second paragraph of ' 112 if they define the metes and bounds
of the claimed subject matter with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
189 USPQ 149 (CCPA 1976) and In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166
USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970). In the present case, the metes and
bounds of claims 21 through 26 and 36 are sufficiently clear
to enable one to evaluate the possibility of infringement and
dominance as set forth in In re Hammack, supra. We conclude
that the scope of claims 21 through 26 and 36 is clear, the
limitation that one end is free of any handle does not
conflict with the term "comprising" because it is permissible
to describe at least some element(s) in terms of what it is
not. The recitation that the tubular portion is frictionally
releasably held is consistent with appellant's clear
description of this feature in the specification at page 5,
lines 16-20.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 21 through 26 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. ' 112, second
paragraph, is reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 11, 21 through
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007