Appeal No. 98-0057
Application No. 08/320,016
metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter with a
reasonable degree of precision as required in In re Venezia,
530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
With regard to the expression “ultraviolet light-
protective color” the definition as quoted supra, does not
make clear the degree to which the outer plastic layer must
“retard” the ultraviolet light in order to be considered as
being “protective.” Furthermore, the specification states that
the expression “ultraviolet light-protective color” means both
“color and composition,” thereby improperly distorting the
meaning of the term “color.” Such a distorted definition is
not permissible and renders claim 1 indefinite. See In re
Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 597, 170 USPQ 330, 338 (CCPA 1971) and In
re Hill, 161 F.2d 367, 369, 73 USPQ 482, 484 (CCPA 1947).
For the foregoing reasons we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 through 8 under the second paragraph of
§ 112. However, to the extent that the claim language is
understandable, we will not sustain the examiner’s § 103
rejection of the appealed claims based on the combined
teachings of Fouss and Prassas.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007