Appeal No. 1999-0272 Page 4
Application No. 08/605,212
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 8, 10, 12 and
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 8 reads as follows:
Apparatus according to claim 7 wherein each said
drive means is formed as an electric servodrive with a
driven crank, and a coupling rod is coupled between a
crank pin of each driven crank and the associated shear
arm at a distance from the longitudinal axis of the
column.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007