Appeal No. 2001-0737 Page 7
Application No. 08/766,212
The second reason is that it is unclear whether claim 62 and
its dependent claims call for a clamp structure per se, or a
combination of a clamp structure and a counterweight (see e.g., claim
86). We agree with the appellant (brief, pp. 13-14) that claim 62 is
clearly drawn to a clamp structure per se, not the combination of a
clamp structure and a counterweight. Likewise, claim 86 is clearly
drawn to the combination of a clamp structure and a counterweight.
The third reason is that a variety of confusing terms are used
in claims 73, 75 and 78.1 We agree with the appellant (brief, pp.
14-15) that the terms used in claim 73 are not confusing. In fact,
the examiner has not set forth why the terms used in claim 73 are
confusing and/or indefinite.
The fourth reason is that a variety of terms (cited by the
examiner on page 4 of the final rejection) using the suffix
"-like" were indefinite. In our view, those terms using the suffix
"-like" are definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, since they define the metes and bounds of the claimed
1 Claims 75 and 78 are not subject to this rejection and
have been withdrawn from consideration.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007