Appeal No. 1999-1876
Application No. 08/626,488
spindle and socket, and due to this inconsistency, the scope of
claims 10 and 12 to 15 is indefinite.
(b) Although claims 10 and 12 to 14 are drawn to a method, the
scope of these claims is indefinite in that it is not clear what
steps are being claimed, because rather than reciting a step of
doing something, the claims state that something is done. For
example, in claim 10, it is not clear whether, in reciting "is
placed" in line 3, appellant intends to claim the step of
"placing"; in line 7, whether "is retained" is intended to be a
recitation of the step of "retaining"; and in line 13, whether
"is manufactured" is intended to be a recitation of the step of
"manufacturing." As further examples, in claim 13, it cannot be
determined whether appellant intends to claim the step of
welding, and in claim 14, whether "is provided" is a claimed step
of the method. Claim 10 is also indefinite in its use of the
expression "characterized in that" in line 6. It is not clear
whether the subject matter recited prior to this expression is
intended to be only the preamble of the claim, or is intended to
include a step or steps of the claimed method.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
It is well settled that a rejection under § 103 should not
be based on considerable speculation as to the meaning of terms
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007