Appeal No. 97-2451 Page 11 Application No. 08/260,635 the appellant's specification fails to set forth an adequate definition as to what is meant by that terminology. Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 We emphasize again here that claim 1 contains unclear language which renders the subject matter thereof indefinite for the reasons stated supra as part of our new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. We find that it is not possible to apply the prior art to claim 1 in deciding the question of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 without resorting to speculation and conjecture as to the meaning of the questioned limitations in claim 1. This being the case, we are therefore constrained to reverse the examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claim 2 which depends therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the holding in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). This reversal of the examiner's rejection is based only on the technical grounds relating to the indefiniteness of the claims. CONCLUSION To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed and a new rejection ofPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007