Appeal No. 2001-0382
Application No. 08/861,481
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in agreement
with Appellants (Brief, pages 6-9) that, contrary to the Examiner’s
assertion, there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity in the claimed
terminology “the length per rotation” in rejected claims 2-5. It
is apparent to us that the language in the clause beginning with
“the length per rotation” is specifically providing a definition of
the term “twist length” previously recited in independent claim 1.
If the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those
skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. The failure
to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always
render a claim indefinite. Ex parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1145
(Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). Similarly, we agree with Appellants
that no ambiguity exists in the use of the term “the same” in
rejected claims 3 and 8 in describing the relationship of twist
lengths between two conductor pairs (claim 3) and that of direction
of rotation and direction of twist (claim 8).
It is our view that the skilled artisan, having considered the
specification in its entirety, would have no difficulty
ascertaining the scope of the invention recited in the appealed
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007