Appeal No. 2001-0291 Page 7
Application No. 08/772,559
refer back to the corresponding phrases in claims 1 and 2.
Moreover, the meaning of the first and second characteristics
recited in claim 9 is clear from the express definition
thereof in the claim.
For the foregoing reasons, it is our opinion that the
examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 1-17 is not well
founded. It follows that we shall not sustain this2
rejection. We do, however, enter a new rejection of claims 1-
17 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, infra,
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
The prior art rejections
Normally, when substantial confusion exists as to the
interpretation of a claim and no reasonably definite meaning
can be ascribed to the terms in a claim, a determination as to
patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 is not made. See
In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962)
2Having said this, however, we suggest that, in the event of further
prosecution, in order to render the claims more easily readable, appellants
consider amending the claims to: insert the term --cross-sectional-- in
referring to the edge, area, edge area and area of the edge in claims 2, 3, 9
and 10; refer to the "edges" in claim 11 and the "edge" in claim 13 as --end--
edge(s); and, in claim 13, change "opening" to –-openings– and "sections"
(third occurrence) to –-openings–-. Additionally, the distinction between the
"bearing area" of each bolt and the "total bearing area" of the bolts could be
clarified in claim 17.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007