Appeal No. 2000-1011
Application 09/042,761
broad in this regard and is not indefinite.
With respect to claim 1 alone, the examiner questions
whether the biasing means is the same or different from the
drive mechanism, and further questions the workings of the
clutch. The appellants are correct when they state that the
drive mechanism and the restraining member biasing means are
individually claimed, and claim 1, while broad, is not
indefinite therefore. Finally, with respect to claims 15 and
20 the examiner states that “no motive means to move the
carriage has been recited and therefore the claim is
incomplete.” Here again, the appellants are correct that the
claim is merely broad with regard to these features, and the
claimed subject matter is not indefinite in this respect.
Finally, we note the last sentence in the examiner’s answer on
page 3, wherein the examiner states that “it is not understood
how and when the claimed clutch functions.” We note that if
this were indeed the case, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph, might be proper, but this certainly is
not a rejection properly grounded under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007