Appeal No. 2003-1475
Application No. 09/352,250
artisan that appellants had possession at the time of filing of
the present application of the later claimed subject matter of
claims 16 and 19. It is for this reason the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, cannot be sustained.
Indefiniteness issue
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
In the examiner’s opinion, the recitation of a second clamp
member “adapted to” a first clamp member in a claim to a book
clamp raises an issue of indefiniteness. We disagree. Clearly,
the “adapted to” language establishes a very broad relationship
between the first and second clamp members. Nevertheless, in our
opinion, this broad relationship between clamp members of a book
clamp would be understood by one skilled in the art, based upon
the underlying disclosure. Thus, the language at issue is
certainly very broad, but not indefinite in meaning. As such,
the indefiniteness rejection cannot be sustained.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007