Appeal No. 97-4151
Application 08/379,181
in that, according to what is recited, the means allows itself
to include a display pocket, which makes no sense. Apparently
what was intended, but is not clearly expressed, is that the
means includes a display pocket.
(B) Claims 2, 3, 5 to 7, 12, 13 and 15 to 17 are
indefinite when one attempts to read them in light of the
disclosure. Cf. In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95,
98 (CCPA 1971). The problem with these claims can be
described by referring to claim 3 as an example. Claim 3
recites (emphasis added) “The invention of claim 1 wherein
said compartment divider is a four compartment divider.” The
use of the singular verb “is” and noun “divider” in this claim
implies that the claim is drawn to a single element of
structure which divides the container compartment into four
compartments. Similar language is found in the disclosure on
page 8, lines 12 to 15, but the drawing (Fig. 4) does not
clearly show a single divider having three vertical members,
but rather appears to show three separate vertical dividers
(plural) 144 dividing the organizer 100 into four
compartments. The scope of these claims is therefore unclear.
(C) Claims 9, 10, 19 and 20 are indefinite in their
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007