Appeal No. 1998-2043
Application No. 08/606,601
The rejection of claims 1-6 for indefiniteness appears reasonable, in that the scope
of base claim 1 seems to be ambiguous. In light of appellants’ disclosure, the “first and
second tape guiding members” recited in claim 1 refer to tape guiding members 10, 11 as
shown in instant Figures 1-4. The tape guiding members are distinct from supportive
structures such as arm 13 and shaft 13a, which are attached to tape guiding member 10
and which are responsible, in part, for effecting movement of tape guiding member 10.
Although the “wherein” clause refers to movement of “at least” the first tape guiding
member, there is nothing otherwise recited in the claim that is capable of imparting
movement to “at least” the first tape guiding member. The claim thus, at the least, raises a
question with respect to what structures the recitations set forth as making up the
apparatus -- that is, what additional structure, in addition to that positively recited, might be
included by the claim.2
In any event, appellants have not shown the rejection of claims 1-6 for indefiniteness
to be in error, and indeed have failed to submit any suitable response to the rejection. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7-10 under section 112, second
paragraph, however. The “first sense rotational movement” of claim 7, alleged to render
2We observe that appellants must intend for the “wherein” clause of claim 1 to set forth further
structure than that positively recited (i.e., in addition to the rotary drum, cassette mounting member, and
tape guiding members). If the “wherein” clause does not do so, it appears that claim 1 would read on
appellants’ own admitted prior art, as represented by instant Figures 5-7.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007