Appeal No. 96-3618
Application 08/004,598
and/or receive," the claim would be infringed by a device
which transmits and receives, or by a device which only
transmits, or by a device which only receives. Therefore, the
alternative limitation is met by prior art which transmits and
receives, or by a device which only transmits, or by a device
which only receives. This indefiniteness ground of rejection
of claims 1, 7, 9, 30, and 77, and their dependent claims 5
and 43-45 is reversed.
The Examiner considers the term "substantially higher" in
claim 30 to be a relative term which renders the claim
indefinite (2dSEA26). We disagree. Relative claim language
does not automatically render a claim indefinite.
Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed, in
light of the specification. In this case, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have understood that "substantially
higher" means the power level allows cellular base stations to
transmit signals over a distance of several miles while the
power level of cordless base station transmits maybe 100 feet.
This indefiniteness ground of rejection of claim 30 and its
dependent claims 43-45 is reversed.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007