Appeal 2007-1828
Application 10/772,811
apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention, § 112 demands no
more"); In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971) (the
indefiniteness inquiry asks whether the claims "circumscribe a particular area with
a reasonable degree of precision and particularity").
ANALYSIS
As noted above in our findings of fact, it is our view that the Examiner has
not established that Thorud discloses a paddle with a bottom wall that is arcuate
about an axis parallel to the paddle shaft. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 9-
23 are reversed. We also reverse the rejections of claims 1-8, inasmuch as Thorud
does not appear to show a paddle that is substantially planar. However,
notwithstanding appellants’ specification at line 14, of page 7, we do not regard the
shape of the bottom wall 70 of appellants’ paddle 56 as substantially planar. Both
Figures 5 and 6 show that the bottom wall 70 is arcuate as claimed in claims 9 and
16. Therefore, we enter a rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as misdescriptive of Appellants’ subject matter. In other words, as
recognized in Figures 5 and 6 and in Appellants’ claims 9 and 16, the bottom wall
70 of the paddle disclosed by Appellants is arcuate. In our view, the arcuate
portion of the bottom wall cannot be said to be substantially planar. This rejection
is entered pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-23 under § 102 and § 103 are reversed. A new
rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, pursuant to our
authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) is entered by the Board.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013