Appeal No. 1999-1036
Application No. 08/644,523
extending transverse to said elongate shear reinforcement
members and parallel to the plane of the slab floor” (emphasis
added in both instances). We are not persuaded by the
arguments presented by the appellant, and find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner that the metes and bounds of the
claims are not clear. This being the case, we will sustain
the rejection. However, it is our view that the claim
language can be modified to overcome the rejection, and we
will recommend language to accomplish this below.
Insofar as the evaluation of the rejection is concerned,
we first point out that because a patentee has the right to
exclude others from making, using and selling the invention
covered by the patent, the public must be apprised of exactly
what the patent covers, so that those who would approach the
area circumscribed by the claims of a patent may more readily
and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved
and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance,
and it is to this that the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112
is directed. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ
204, 208 (CCPA 1970). According to the preamble of each of
the independent claims, the invention is directed to a shear
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007