Appeal No. 1999-1758
Application No. 08/787,971
application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
as defined in claim 1 on appeal.
Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Now we look to the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellant regards as the invention.
Specifically, claim 1 includes the recitation "an adaptor
configured to releasably engage and grip at least two adjacent
or two opposing surfaces of a jaw of a beam clamp." The
examiner contends (answer, page 6) that there is no clear
description in the instant specification defining what is
being claimed and no reference characters in the drawings to
designate the adjacent or opposing surfaces as set forth in
claim 1 on appeal. The examiner further contends that the
angular clips 24 of appellant’s invention in fact engage no
surfaces of the jaw (14, 16). We agree with the appellant
(Reply Brief, page 3) that the exact wording of the claims is
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007