Appeal No. 1999-2363
Application 08/587,710
retainer as recited in claim 32 in the absence of the
receptor. The examiner also considers the claims to be
indefinite due to a lack of antecedent basis in the underlying
specification for the “elements” terminology employed in the
claims.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
In determining whether this standard is met, the definiteness
of the language employed in the claims must be analyzed, not
in a vacuum, but always in light of the teachings of the prior
art and of the particular application disclosure as it would
be interpreted by one possessing the ordinary level of skill
in the pertinent art. Id.
An analysis of claims 5 through 10 and 32 in light of the
underlying disclosure shows the examiner’s indefiniteness
concerns to be unfounded. Using the disclosure of the
embodiment illustrated in Figures 1 through 4 as an example,
it is evident that the nut/fastener element 36 is secured to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007