Appeal No. 1998-1052
Application No. 08/683,600
the dryer head} within which the heat lamp assembly is
positioned. While we might speculate as to what is meant by
this claim language, our uncertainty provides us with no
proper basis for making the
comparison between that which is claimed and the prior art, as
we are obligated to do. Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103
should not be based upon “considerable speculation as to the
meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope
of the claims.” In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ
292, 295 (CCPA 1962). When no reasonably definite meaning can
be ascribed to certain terms in a claim, the subject matter
does not become obvious, but rather the claim becomes
indefinite. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494,
496 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse
the examiner’s rejection of claim 29, as well as claim 30 that
depends therefrom, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. We hasten to add that this reversal is not based upon
any evaluation of the merits of the standing § 103 rejection
of these claims as being unpatentable over the applied
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007