Appeal No. 2001-0610 Page 3
Application No. 08/931,932
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
According to the appellant, this invention is useful in circumstances where it is
desirable to have a torque limited applicator that is not attached to the fastener to which
the torque is applied, but is reusable with a plurality of fasteners. An example of such a
use is in the medical industry, where it is desirable to utilize devices that are of low enough
cost that they are disposable. In furtherance of this aim, independent apparatus claims 1
and 17 are directed to a torque limited applicator having a torque applying element
comprising a handle and at least two internal deformable cam followers, and a fastener
drive structure comprising a cam at one end and a fastener drive structure at the other end.
Independent method claim 16 sets forth steps which include the structure recited in the
apparatus claims, and includes the step of completing the preceding steps a second time
utilizing the same torque limited applicator with a different fastener.
The Rejection Under The Second Paragraph Of Section 112
The examiner has raised three issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
which requires claims to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity; in making this determination, the definiteness of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007