Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
The examiner’s final example of claim indefiniteness is refers
to claim 35, which is directed to a reciprocating saw comprising,
inter alia, a track defining a first path of travel during first
cutting and return strokes and a second path of travel during
second cutting and return strokes. The examiner considers that the
claim is indefinite “in that it is not clear what the claim
encompasses . . . . What of the ‘track’ defines these different
paths of travel? In other words, what is the structural nexus that
connects the ‘track’ to the different paths?” (answer, page 4). As
further explained on page 10 of the answer:
[T]he Examiner concedes that the track allows changing of
the paths of travel due to the fact that the track is
adjustable. However, claim 35 does not set forth that
the track is adjustable to define those paths. This is
the requisite nexus that provides the basis for path
definition. At present, the claim only states that the
track defines first and second paths of travel, without
any mention as to what feature of the track allows this
to occur.
The examiner’s position is not well taken. When the claim
language questioned by the examiner is read in light of the
supporting specification, its meaning is clear. More particularly,
the track defines a first path of travel as called for in claim 35
when located in a first position corresponding to the upwardly
inclined position for track member 56 shown in appellant’s Figure
1, and a second path of travel as called for in claim 35 when
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007