Appeal No. 2002-0030 Page 5
Application No. 09/314,267
phrase "mount/drive" would be definite since the metes and bounds thereof can be
ascertained.3
The prior art rejections
In reviewing the claimed subject matter and the prior art rejections before us in
this appeal, it is apparent to us that the examiner has not properly considered the
means plus function limitation recited in each of the independent claims on appeal. For
reasons stated infra in our remand, it is not appropriate to review, at this time, the
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the
rejection of claims 7, 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, our decision on the
merits of these two prior art rejections will be held in abeyance pending the outcome of
the remand.
REMAND
Claims 1 to 20 all include a limitation written in "means plus function format" (i.e.,
means for connecting the torsion elements so that the torsional load on one of the
torsion elements is transmitted to one or more of the other of the torsion elements to
which said one of the torsion elements is connected).
3 In that regard, the mere breadth of a claim does not in and of itself make a claim indefinite. See
In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600 (CCPA 1971).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007