Appeal No. 1999-0272 Page 5
Application No. 08/605,212
The examiner believes (answer, p. 3) that claim 8 is
indefinite since "each" in line 4 should be changed to --the--
as only one coupling rod is being referred to rather than all
the rods.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 5-6; reply brief, pp. 1-
3) that the term "each" in line 4 is appropriate, where as the
term "the" would be inappropriate. Furthermore, the
appellants assert that claim 8 cannot be rejected because the
examiner prefers different phraseology. We agree. After
reviewing claim 8, it is our opinion that it defines the metes
and bounds thereof with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. In that regard, we note that the examiner has
not even alleged that the scope of claim 8 cannot be
determined from the language of the claims with a reasonable
degree of certainty. Thus, the rejection of claims 8, 10, 12
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
inappropriate.
The obviousness rejection
Claims 7, 16 and 17
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007