Appeal No. 1997-3449 Page 7
Application No. 08/424,806
appellant does not contest the rejection. To the contrary, he
admits “the incorrect dependency of claim 5.” (Paper No. 7
at 1.) For these reasons, we are not persuaded that claims
particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject
matter regarded as the invention. Therefore, we affirm the
rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
The examiner rejects claim 12 because “there is no
antecedent basis for ‘said lamps’.” (Examiner’s Answer,
¶ 12.) The appellant does not contest the rejection.
A claim is indefinite “where the language ‘said lever’
appears in a dependent claim where no such ‘lever’ has been
previously recited in a parent claim to that dependent claim .
. . .” Ex parte Moelands, 3 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Bd. Pat. App.
& Int. 1987). Here, dependent claim 12 uses the language
“said lamps.” No such lamps have been previously recited in
independent claim 10, which is the parent claim to claim 12.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that claim 12
particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject
matter that the appellant regards as his invention.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007