Appeal No. 2000-0182 Page 11
Application No. 08/831,327
USPQ 592, 593 (CCPA 1971); In re Wohnsiedler, 315 F.2d 934, 937,
137 USPQ 336, 339 (CCPA 1963).
Similarly, it is our view the following limitation of claim
22 also lacks written description support in the original
disclosure:
wherein with the exception of the leading end grasping
portion closest to the center axis of the insertion section
and the leading end grasping portion farthest from the
center axis of the insertion section, each leading end
grasping portion is positioned a distance away from the
center axis of the insertion section which is between
distances of adjacent leading end grasping portions from the
center axis of the insertion section.
2. Claims 1, 3/1, 4/1, 10/1, 11/1, 12/1 and 22 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007