Appeal No. 2002-0978
Application 09/535,065
serve as a basis for a rejection, since it is not a claimed
feature. Accordingly, the written description rejection of
claims 12-22 is reversed.
With regard to the second paragraph requirement for
"particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject
matter which the applicant regards as his invention," it has been
stated that the "essence of that requirement is that the language
of the claims must make it clear what subject matter they
encompass." In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208
(CCPA 1970). This has been frequently stated in a shortened form
as a requirement that the claims set forth the "metes and bounds"
of their coverage. See, merely for example, In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976); In re Goffe, 526
F.2d 1393, 1397, 188 USPQ 131, 135 (CCPA 1975); In re Watson, 517
F.2d 465, 477, 186 USPQ 11, 20 (CCPA 1975); In re Knowlton, 481
F.2d 1357, 1366, 178 USPQ 486, 492 (CCPA 1973).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, we are of the view that claim 12 does not specify two
movable jaws as stated by the examiner. The phrase “to slidably
guide a movable jaw” is seen to refer to the movable jaw
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007