Appeal No. 96-3090 Page 5
Application 08/287,409
The examiner urges that claim 44 is indefinite because
the phrase "the location of an ordinary wall switch" lacks an
antecedent basis. (Paper 32 at 6-7.) To avoid
indefiniteness, claims must (1) reasonably apprise those
skilled in the art both of the use and the scope of the
invention and (2) use language that is as precise as the
subject matter permits. Shatterproof Glass Corp. v.
Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641
(Fed. Cir. 1985). While we agree that, strictly speaking,
"the location" lacks an antecedent basis, we do not believe
that failing renders the claim imprecise or incomprehensible
for those skilled in the art. Certainly the simplest
alternative--"a location of an ordinary wall switch"--would do
little to improve this particular claim. Consequently, we
will not sustain the rejection for this reason.
The examiner also urges that it is not clear how the sub-
assembly is connected to the terminals. We too are uncertain
what Appellant intends to encompass with the term "sub-
assembly". The underlined portions of claim 44 are not
consistent. This inconsistency is best illustrated when
Appellant explains what he means by "sub-assembly" (Paper 31
(Brief) at 4, emphasis in original):
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007