Appeal No. 2000-0209 Page 13
Application No. 08/693,985
Thus, the failure to provide explicit antecedent basis
for terms does not always render a claim indefinite. As
stated above, if the scope of a claim would be reasonably
ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is
not indefinite. See Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146
(Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992).
With this as background, we analyze the specific
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, made by
the examiner of the claims on appeal.
The examiner (final rejection, p. 3) found claim 10 to be
indefinite since there "is no antecedent basis for the 'distal
ends.'" The appellant argues (brief, p. 7) that claim 10 is
not indefinite. The appellant points out that claim 10
recites that the pair of divergent arms are joined at an apex
and the distal ends of the divergent arms are pivotally
coupled to one of the cross frame members. The appellant
submits that if a pair of divergent arms are joined at an apex
the ends of the divergent arms opposite to the apex are by
definition distal ends. We agree with the appellant that the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007