Appeal No. 2002-2169 Page 4
Application No. 09/163,286
When claims have been rejected under the first and second paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. § 112, analysis "should begin with the determination of whether the claims
satisfy the requirements of the second paragraph." In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235,
169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, our opinion addresses the rejections in
the following order:
• indefiniteness rejections of claims 5, 6, and 12
• written description rejections of claims 6 and 12
• nonenablement rejections of claims 6 and 12
• obviousness rejection of claims 1-7.
Indefiniteness Rejections of Claims 5, 6, and 12
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the three points of contention therebetween. First, the examiner asserts, "in
claims 5 and 6, 'said time phase difference' is indefinite since (1) it lacks a proper
antecedent basis and (2) it is unclear what meaning is attributed thereto." (Examiner's
Answer at 4.) The appellants argue, "[t]he mentioning of 'said time phase differences,
in claims 5 and 6 has antecedent basis in claim 4 with 'measuring a time difference.'"
(Reply Br. at 3.)
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
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007