Appeal No. 1999-1758
Application No. 08/787,971
the invention now set forth in claims 1-8 and 10 on appeal.
Accordingly, we conclude that the rejection under section 112,
first paragraph, is procedurally and substantively proper.
With respect to appellant’s argument on the bottom of
page 6 of the brief, appellant argues that original claim 5
includes the language "first and second fastening clips which
are secured to the adaptor, the clips being configured to
engage opposite sides of a jaw of a beam clamp assembly" gives
basis from the original disclosure for the phrase "adaptor
configured to releasably engage and grip at least two adjacent
or two opposing surfaces of a jaw" set forth in claim 1. Upon
reviewing of claim 1 on appeal and original claim 5, we note
that claim 5 refers to "opposite sides of a jaw" and that
claim 1 refers to "at least two adjacent or two opposing
surfaces of a jaw." Since the "opposite sides" language of
claim 5 is clearly different from the "two adjacent or two
opposing surfaces" language of claim 1 and is also somewhat
ambiguous, we conclude that the structure defined in original
claim 5 is not sufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled
in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007