Ex Parte Farcot et al - Page 13



            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 retaining            





Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013