Appeal No. 2002-0296 Page 8
Application No. 09/248,553
The examiner determined (answer, p. 3) that the claims under appeal directed to
a plate cover were indefinite due to the appellants use of the transition phrase
"consisting of" in claim 1 while not defining all the elements of the plate cover (e.g.,
holes in the plate cover and indicia on the plate cover).
In our view, claims 1 and 3 to 6 are definite as required by the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112.3 Claim 1 recites an improved durable and decorative vehicle
license plate cover, the cover consisting of a single, flat, rigid, solid mar-resistant plate
of optically transparent plastic having a thickness of about 0.5 inch, wherein the plate
has a front surface, an opposite rear surface and sides interconnecting the front and
rear surfaces with the sides sloping forwardly and inwardly at an angle of about 30-60
degrees from the rear surface to the front surface. While claim 1 does not recite that
the plate cover includes holes for attaching the plate cover to a vehicle license plate or
that the plate cover bears indicia viewable from the sides of the plate cover,4 these
limitations just define further aspects of the plate cover not additional elements (e.g.,
license plate, screws). Thus, the appellant has correctly used the transition phrase
3 Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and
particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
4 These limitation appear in dependent claim 4.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007