Interference No. 103,587
A includes the language “the size of said plurality of dots.” At page 3, lines 14-18, of its notice
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.641, the Board found similar language reading “the size of each plurality of
dots” indefinite because “[i]t could mean the number of dots in a plurality, or the total area of the
dots in a plurality, or something else.” Katayama did not challenge this position of the Board in
its response to the notice under 37 CFR § 1.641. In contrast, Levien’s proposed count B does not
include such language or any other indefinite language specified in the Board’s notice.
Accordingly, proposed count A does not overcome all of the indefiniteness of count 1, whereas
proposed count B does.
As a result of this decision, the interference is being redeclared in an accompanying paper
by substituting count 2 corresponding exactly to Levien’s proposed count B for count 1.
It is considered that Katayama claims 32-41, as amended, are indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, because they include the term “the size of said plurality of dots.” As
indicated above, in the notice under 37 CFR § 1.641 the Board found similar language indefinite
and Katayama did not oppose this position in its response to the notice. Accordingly, judgment
in this proceeding will indicate that Katayama is not entitled to a patent with its amended
claims 32-41.
It is considered that Levien’s reissue claims 6, 9-11, 14, 15, 18-20 and 23, as amended in
its response to the Board’s notice, are allowable because the amendment of these claims has
overcome their rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Katayama’s Preliminary Motion under 37 CFR § 1.633(f)
for Benefit of Earlier Applications
Katayama filed with the joint preliminary motion a motion for benefit of its earlier
U.S. Application No. 07/270,809, filed November 14, 1988 and its continuing U.S. Application
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007