Appeal No. 2000-0084 Page 7
Application No. 08/619,672
circumscribed by the claims of a patent may more readily and accurately determine the
boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and
dominance. It is to this that the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is directed. See In
re Hammack 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970).
It is our opinion that two instances of indefiniteness appear in claim 9. The first is
that it is not clear as to which of the three elements named in the opening lines are
intended to be covered by the claim. The claim states that the invention is “[a] self-
penetrating fastening device including a rivet impacted by a punch and a counterpressure
tool” (lines 1 and 2, emphasis added). It goes on to recite only the structure of the rivet.
Claim 9 thus could be interpreted as not positively reciting the punch and the
counterpressure tool. However, the rivet has been described in the specification as “a
component of the self-penetrating fastening device” (page 3, line 10), which would imply
that the “device” includes all three elements. This conclusion is supported by the fact that
details of “said counterpressure tool” are recited in dependent claims 13-16 and 18.
Consideration should be given to changing “device” to “system” in appropriate places in
the specification and claims, and deleting “impacted by” from claim 9.
The second instance is in regard to the closing lines of claim 9, which recite:
a substantially rounded transition region having a radius and extending from
said shank to a bottom of said rivet head.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007