Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
§ 112, second paragraph, is whether the claims meet the threshold
requirements of clarity and precision, not whether more suitable
language or modes of expression are available. Some latitude in
the manner of expression and the aptness of terms is permitted even
though the claim language is not as precise as the examiner might
desire. MPEP, § 2173.02.
In the present case, the examiner contends that the claims are
replete with vague and indefinite language, and lists several
examples. As a first example, the examiner asserts on page 3 of
the answer that it is not clear what claim 17 encompasses because,
in the examiner’s view, “the structural line of distinction”
between the claimed “motor” and the claimed “means for selectively
changing” is not clear. As further explained on page 8 of the
answer:
[T]he function of the “means” and the function of the
“motor” overlap, since they both facilitate movement in
the first path, first cutting stroke, and the first
return stroke. Thus, the reason for raising the issue of
indefiniteness. At most it is understood in light of the
disclosure that the motor facilitates reciprocation of
the spindle end. Moreover, it is understood from the
disclosure that the track and follower allows the user to
change the paths. . . . [T]he changing means do not
perform both functions of changing the path and moving
the spindle. The changing means simply allows or defines
the paths of movement. The motor simply facilitates
reciprocation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007