Appeal 2007-1463 Page 13 Application 10/083,492 below the disc or base. C. Principles of Law 1. The test for compliance is whether the claims set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity when read in light of the application disclosure as they would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). 2. Just because a term is broad, does not mean it is indefinite. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (1970). D. Analysis The claim is specifically drawn to a means for retaining the screws on the plate and for connecting the plate to the disk when the base is not affixed to the sports apparatus. In other words, the claim requires that the screws on the plate do connect the plate to the disk when the base is not affixed to the sports apparatus. The metes and bounds of the claim is such that it excludes all means which cannot function as the claim provides. That is, the claim excludes means whereby the screws on the plate do not connect the plate to the disk when the base is not affixed to the sports apparatus. Any argument that the claim encompasses an embodiment whereby the screws would not connect the plate to the disk when the base is not affixed to the sports apparatus, would be reading the claim in a manner inconsistent with the language of the claim. Having said that, however, we see nothing in Appellants' Specification that specifically limits the means for retainingPage: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013