Appeal No. 1999-0527
Application No. 08/801,837
segments is understandable supports the view that the showing in
Figure 1 alone is inadequate. While the specification (pages 6
and 7) may descriptively support the argued recitation of
guideways delimited by punched out portions (main brief, page 6,
and reply brief, page 4)), the overall disclosure, inclusive of
the drawings (punched out areas 5.2 solely shown in Figure 1),
fails to adequately inform as to the actual structure of the
guideways, as indicated, supra.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
We reverse this rejection of appellants’ claims.
The examiner considers claim 1, for example, to set forth
insufficient structural relationships which render the claims
indefinite (answer, page 6). However, our reading of claim 1
informs us that it would reasonably apprise those having skill in
the art at issue as to the metes and bounds of the claimed
subject matter. Consistent with the view of appellants (reply
brief, pages 3 and 4), it is apparent to us that what the
examiner’s concerns address relates to the breadth of claim 1 not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007