Appeal No. 2006-0524 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/051,577
New Ground of Rejection
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b), we enter the following new rejection.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
appellant regards as the invention.
The test for compliance with the second paragraph of Section 112, is "whether the
claim language, when read by a person of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
specification, describes the subject matter with sufficient precision that the bounds of the
claimed subject matter are distinct." In re Merat, 519 F.2d 1390, 1396, 186 USPQ 471,
476 (CCPA 1975). In other words, does a claim reasonably apprise those of skill in the
art of its scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1759 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Independent claim 1 recites:
block head pressing element being a closed compact unit
with a block head pressing drive. . .
block foot pressing element being a closed compact unit with
a block foot pressing drive. . .
block front pressing element being a closed compact unit with
a block front pressing drive. . .
We note that the phrase "closed compact unit" is not used in the specification. In
addition, the pressing units 15, 19 and 22 are not depicted in Figures 2 and 3 as within
what one would consider a closed unit with press driving elements 3, 20. Rather, the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007