Appeal No. 2001-0302
Application No. 08/635,614
is a broad term that refers to the torque limiter as a whole
including, for example, the ring-like member 51 and the adjacent
portions of the steering shaft 3 and worm wheel 10 that cooperate
therewith to confine and compress member 51, and that the term
“torque setting member” is a narrower term that refers to the
ring-like member 51. Hence, the claim language “the torque
limiter includes a torque setting member” does not constitute a
“double claiming” of a single disclosed element, as maintained by
the examiner.
The examiner also contends that the terms “diametric
direction,” “diametric deformation” and “diametric movement”
appearing in the claims are novel terms whose meaning would not
be known to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Again, we do not
agree. The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In making this
determination, the definiteness of the language employed in the
claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007