Appeal No. 2002-1677 Page 5
Application No. 08/944,817
of expression and the aptness of terms is permitted even though the claim language is
not as precise as the examiner might desire. If the scope of the invention sought to be
patented can be determined from the language of the claims with a reasonable degree
of certainty, a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
inappropriate.
With this as background, it is our opinion that claims 1 to 11 comply with the
requirements of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. In that regard, while the
claims do not positively recite a clamp (as in claims 13 to 16), we do not see that such
is dictated by the language of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claim 1, for example, is drawn to a pipe-to-component connector system,
comprising, inter alia, a forged flange and a metallic piping segment. We see no
requirement in the language of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for claim 1 to
further recite a clamp to connect and the forged flange and the metallic piping segment
together. Claim 1 is clearly drawn to a pipe-to-component connector system having a
forged flange and a metallic piping segment and as such define the metes and bounds
thereof with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007