Appeal No. 2001-0737 Page 6
Application No. 08/766,212
Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of
terms is permitted even though the claim language is not as
precise as the examiner might desire. If the scope of the
invention sought to be patented can be determined from the
language of the claims with a reasonable degree of certainty,
a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is inappropriate.
With this as background, we analyze the specific reasons set
forth by the examiner (final rejection, pp. 3-5) for the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The first reason is that it is unclear whether claim 1 and its
dependent claims call for a balancing arrangement per se, or a
combination of a balancing arrangement and a rotating member. We
agree with the appellant (brief, pp. 12-13) that claim 1 is clearly
drawn to a balancing arrangement per se, not the combination of a
balancing arrangement and a rotating member.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007