Appeal No. 2002-0030 Page 4
Application No. 09/314,267
The indefiniteness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958,
189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
In this rejection, the examiner stated (final rejection, p. 2) that the phrase
"mount/drive" is indefinite. Specifically, the examiner asserted that he is uncertain if the
phrase is a combination of a mount and a drive or a choice of a mount and a drive.
We agree with the appellant (see brief, pp. 4-5) that the phrase "mount/drive" as
used in claim 7 is definite. The specification (p. 5) clearly defines the phrase
"mount/drive" to mean either that the toroidal wheel is (1) mounted for and driven in
rotation, or (2) mounted for rotation but is not driven. Thus, the metes and bounds of
the phrase "mount/drive" can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. Moreover, even under the examiner's asserted alternative meaning the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007