Appeal No. 1999-1036
Application No. 08/644,523
the view that these claims do not meet the “reasonable degree
of certainty” test. Moving on to the cases cited, the portion
of Vaupel to which the appellant refers on page 4 of the Brief
relates to a method step in which the fabric is guided in such
a manner as to “allow movement” toward an element, which
simply uses the element as a reference point, as distinguished
from being moved toward that element, which suggests that the
element actually is part of the claimed invention. The
situation in Orthokinetics is analogous, in that the claim
requires that the device be “insertable” and not inserted
between the door frame and the seats. We further point out in
this regard that in lines 14-15 of claim 16 the appellant has
avoided the problem to which this rejection is directed, in
that he has recited that the invention further comprises
“connectors for fastening said rail to . . . bars of the slab
floor” (emphasis added), which relates the claimed structure
(the shear reinforcement system) to the unclaimed structure
(the slab floor) without giving rise to the uncertainty of
whether the claim positively includes the slab floor, as would
have been the case if the language had been simply “fastening
said rail . . .”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007