Appeal No. 1997-4234
Application No. 08/423,211
rejection.
Claims 1-27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Independent claims 1, 13 - 17, 23, 25, 26, and 27, and the claims which depend
therefrom, are directed to test kits or acid indicator systems and the use thereof
comprising a hollow transparent member with an acid indicator assembly which
comprises "a substantially sheet-like substrate."
The legal standard for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is whether a claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. See
Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d
1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. denied sub nom., Genetics Inst., Inc. v. Amgen, Inc.,
112 S.Ct. 169 (1991). In our opinion, the present claims fail to reasonably apprise
those skilled in this art of the scope of what is claimed. The terminology "substantially
sheet-like substrate" is not explicitly defined in the specification. While the drawings of
the Specification (See figures 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) would reasonably appear to set
forth a sheet like structure and one would expect that "pH paper" would similarly be in
the form of a sheet, there is nothing of record which would explain what appellants
intend by the use of "a substantially sheet-like structure" as compared to a "sheet-like
structure". The presence of the term "substantially" in the claim would suggest that it
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007