Appeal No. 1999-2363
Application 08/587,710
the nut/fastener element retainer 34 independently of receptor
18 by flats 40 and closure ring 46. This disclosure belies
the examiner’s rationale that the appealed claims are
indefinite for failing to recite the receptor as part of the
claimed combination. Furthermore, the examiner has not
specifically explained, nor is it apparent, why the so-called
“elements” terminology in the claims cannot be readily read on
the structure described in the appellants’ specification,
notwithstanding any lack of literal antecedent basis in the
specification for such terminology.
Thus, the points raised by the examiner do not justify a
conclusion that claims 5 through 10 and 32 fail to set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. Accordingly, we shall not
sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection of these claims.
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007