Appeal No. 2003-0786
Application 09/059,712
As for the recitation that the asymmetrical wrenching system
of claim 24 “can generate a greater torque to failure in the
loosening direction than the tightening direction,” we recognize
that this exact language was not present in the specification as
originally filed, however, we agree with appellant (brief, pages
12-13) that one skilled in the art reading the specification and
looking to the drawings of the application would have understood
that the higher torque in the loosening direction mentioned
throughout the specification can readily be related to “torque to
failure” of the wrench or fastener since such a reference level
is common in the art and would, as appellant urges, have been
recognized as being inherently present in the application
disclosure as originally filed.
For the above reasons, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 24 through 35, 37, 42 through 44, 46, 48, 50,
52 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Regarding the rejection of claims 25, 26, 43 and 44 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
applicant regards as the invention, we note that this rejection
is premised on the examiner’s purported inability to understand
the “single periphery” language of the claims on appeal, since
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007