Appeal No. 98-3287
Reissue Application 08/354,624
For the reason discussed above, we consider appellant's
claim 1 through 23 to be sufficiently indefinite that
application
of the references to the claims is not possible. On this
basis,
we will not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It
should be understood that this reversal is not a reversal on
the merits of the rejection, but rather is a procedural
reversal predicated upon the indefiniteness of the claims.
We will also not sustain the rejection of claims 1
through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 251. The reason given by the
examiner for
the rejection is that "the oath/declaration [fails] to address
how and why the presently amended claims remain patentable by
correcting the alleged errors over the references" (answer,
page 5). At the time the examiner's answer was mailed,
neither § 251 nor the rules required the reissue oath or
declaration to explain how or why the reissue claims were
patentable. However, the rules did require the reissue oath
or declaration to particularly specify "the errors relied
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007