Appeal No. 1999-2086
Application 08/692,062
Claims 34 through 40 are rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
being indefinite and inaccurate, thus failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which appellants regard as their invention.
Our first difficulty with the language in claim 34 centers on the recitation that the clutch
enables “rotation of the other screw with respect to the screw which is being rotated” (emphasis
added). According to claim 34, the screw “being rotated” appears to be readable on the screw
that is directly connected to the handle rather than the screw that is connected through the
clutch to the handle. Thus, the “other screw” in the last clause of claim 34 would be readable on
the screw that is connected through the clutch to the handle. It is not clear how the clutch will
enable the “other screw” (i.e., the screw that is connected through the clutch to the handle) to
rotate with respect to (i.e., relative to) the screw “which is being rotated,” presumably by
turning the handle. At best, this clause is misdescriptive inasmuch as the disengagement of the
clutch will interrupt rotation of the “other screw” to prevent rotation of the “other screw” with
respect to the screw “being rotated.”
With further regard to the last clause in claim 34, it is not clear what is meant by the
recitation that the clutch is “coupled with” one of the screws. At best it would appear that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007