Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
travel. Indeed, claim 17 expressly sets forth both of these
functions, albeit in different portions of the claim. In light of
the foregoing, we cannot support the examiner’s second reason for
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The examiner’s third example of claim indefiniteness is
similar to the first example discussed above. Here, the examiner
cites to claim 18 and contends (answer, page 4) that the claim is
vague and indefinite in that it is not clear what constitutes the
structural line of distinction between the “means for moving” and
the “means for selectively adjusting.”
We agree with the examiner that the “means for moving” and the
“means for selectively adjusting” of claim 18 overlap in the sense
that they share certain common elements. However, as was the case
with the examiner’s first example, we do not share the examiner’s
view that this circumstance renders the claim vague and indefinite.
As we stated above, there is no per se rule prohibiting the double
recitation of such common elements. In the present case, we
consider that the meaning of the “means for moving” and “means for
selectively adjusting” terminology of claim 18 is reasonably clear,
especially when read in light of appellant’s specification. It
follows that we do not agree with the examiner’s third reason for
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007