Appeal No. 2001-2407
Application No. 09/154,703
particularity. It is here where the definiteness of the language
employed must be analyzed–not in a vacuum, but always in light of
the teachings of the prior art and of the particular application
disclosure as it would be interpreted by one possessing the
ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In re Moore, 439 F2d 1232,
1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
Clearly, in view of the instant disclosure, the claimed
“integrating structure” is the structure 25 in Figures 12A and
12B. It “integrates” the actuator and suspension, as indicated
at lines 3-6 of page 29 of the specification. Since the claimed
term is consistent with the specification and the specification
clearly defines what is meant by an “integrated structure,” we
find nothing indefinite about this term.
Further, it is also clear that the structure is adequately
disclosed in Figures 12A and 12B and amply described in the
specification so that there is clear support and an enabling
disclosure of and for the claimed “integrated structure.”
From the arguments of appellants and the examiner, it
appears that there is some dispute about what claims are included
in the elected species pursuant to a restriction requirement. We
leave this matter to be worked out between appellants and the
examiner as the propriety of a restriction requirement and the
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007