Appeal No. 2003-1363
Application No. 09/608,985
broader claim which lacks descriptive support in the disclosure,
as filed (answer, page 5). However, it is our opinion that the
fact that claim 19 omits a "securing means" is not fatal under
the current circumstances. In this mechanical case, broad claim
19 sets forth what can fairly be assessed as a subcombination
system. It is worthy of noting that the examiner has
appropriately not referenced the "securing means" as absolutely
essential, since clearly it is not. From our perspective, claim
19 is just broad, and is not lacking description in the
supporting original disclosure of this mechanical invention.
Thus, the examiner's rejection of claim 19 cannot be sustained on
a new matter ground.
Indefiniteness
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3 through 10,
12, and 16 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007