Appeal No. 2006-1853 Page 4
Application No. 10/051,573
claim the subject matter applicants regard as the invention. In particular, the
examiner states that claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 are vague and indefinite because it
appears that these claims are setting forth the same disclosed structure multiple
times under different name terminologies. Specifically, the examiner asserts that
the reference numbers 16 and 48 for “device” and “chassis” each point to the same
rectangular housing structure that has a recessed channel defining the mounting
pathway, and thus, the claims improperly include duplicate recitations of the same
disclosed element. (Examiner’s Answer, p. 4).
We disagree with the examiner’s rejection.
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim
is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs,
Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted). The specification clearly explains the difference between device (16)
and chassis (48). For example, on page 5, line 27 – page 6, line 8, the specification
states,
Regardless of the particular function of the device 16,
device 16 may be provided with a housing or chassis 48
suitable for holding the various systems and components
(not shown) that may be contained within the first device
16. By way of example, in the embodiment shown and
described herein, the chassis 48 comprises a generally
rectangularly shaped structure having a top surface 22, a
bottom surface 24 and two opposed sides or surfaces 21
and 23. . . The chassis 48 may also be provided with a
first channel member 56 therein which, together with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007