Appeal 2007-1212
Application 10/278,319
clear from the Specification drawings, particularly Figure 6, which feature or
features the claim term is referring too. As explained by the Examiner, catch
portion 82 of the resilient member might be considered a blocking member,
as could securing groove 80 of retaining nut 50, surface 84 of the securing
groove, as well as fingers 78 of the resilient member. In the absence of a
clear indication in the original Specification of what constitutes the blocking
member, we must agree with the Examiner that the breadth and scope of
claim 39 is not originally described in appellant's Specification.
We will also sustain the Examiner's § 112, second paragraph, rejection
of claims 34-45 for the reason that Appellant has not adequately explained
how the resilient member is cantilevered with respect to the inner peripheral
surface of the hand operator and, as set forth above, Appellant has not
reasonably defined the scope of the blocking member of claim 39. In our
view, the Examiner has raised reasonable questions regarding the ambiguity
of claims 34 and 39. While Appellant maintains that an applicant can be
his/her own lexicographer, this does not relieve an applicant of the duty to
reasonably circumscribe the scope of the claims.
We will also sustain the Examiner's § 102 rejection of claims 1-4 over
Raloff. Appellant contends that Raloff "does not disclose a hand operator
'adapted to be releasably secured to the retaining nut,' as recited in
independent claim 1 (emphases added)" (page 16 of principal Br., first
sentence). However, as explained by the Examiner, the outer element 70
can be, alternatively, molded as a separate piece onto inner element 68 and
"secured thereto by means of a mechanical or chemical fastening system"
(col. 7, ll. 16-18). Since a screw is a common mechanical fastening system
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013