Appeal No. 96-0926
Application No. 07/995,683
indefinite because it cannot be determined if the language is
merely exemplary or limiting. Ex parte Wu, 10 USPQ2d 2031,
2033 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989). Nevertheless, appellant may
overcome this problem by simply deleting the objectionable
language or by using so-called Markush terminology to recite
that the chemical which causes the disorder is one "selected
from the group consisting of A, B, C and D." Finally, we
observe that "alcohol", presumably ethanol, and "nicotine" are
drugs. Accordingly, the terminology "chemicals such as
nicotine, alcohol or drugs" is confusing.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed. The rejection of claims 4 and
5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed. The
decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
MARY F. DOWNEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007