Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
first instance of the “means for selectively changing”
did not include the functionality of changing to the
third path of travel, it is the Examiner’s opinion that
this part of the claim is indefinite for lacking clear
antecedent basis for the functionality. It is noted that
if the “means for selectively changing” clause included
details for adjustment of the third path, then this issue
would be resolved. [Footnotes omitted.]
At the outset, we note that the examiner’s rejection in this
respect is not founded on any misunderstanding of what constitutes
the “third path of travel.” Our difficulty with the examiner’s
stated position is that it is based upon a piecemeal reading of
claim 17 rather than a reading of the claim as a whole. While the
examiner may be correct in noting that the clarity and readability
of claim 17 might be improved by initially reciting the “third path
of travel” function in the portion of the claim that first sets
forth the “means for selectively changing,” we again point out that
the examiner’s focus during examination with respect to
definiteness should be on whether the claim meets the threshold
requirements of clarity and precision, not on whether more suitable
language or mode of expression is available. In the present
instance, when claim 17 is read as a whole, it is clear that the
“means for selectively changing” functions not only to change the
first path of travel to a second path of travel, but also to adjust
one of the first and second paths of travel to a third path of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007