Appeal No. 2003-1472
Application No. 09/606,955
located in a second position corresponding to the downwardly
inclined position for track member 56 shown in appellant’s Figure
11. Judging from the examiner’s remarks on page 10 of the answer
as quoted above, it appears that his concern is with the breadth of
claim 35 rather than with any indefinite language therein. This is
not a proper basis for rejecting claims under § 112, second
paragraph, because the breadth of a claim is not to be equated with
indefiniteness. In re Miller, 441 F.2d 689, 693, 169 USPQ 597, 600
(CCPA 1971).
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 6-11, 16-19, 21-25, 27, 34-36 and 76-97 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
Each of the independent claims on appeal calls for, in one
form or another, the following:
a spindle mounted for reciprocation and having an end for
supporting a saw blade,
a saw blade selectively supported by said end in a first
direction relative to the spindle to have a first cutting
direction and in a second orientation relative to the
spindle to have a second cutting direction opposite the
first cutting direction,
a motor (or, means) for moving the end along a first path
of travel, the first path of travel having a first
cutting stroke and a first return stroke, and
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007