Appeal No. 2004-1419
Application 09/733,041
OPINION
Having carefully reviewed the indefiniteness, anticipation
and obviousness issues raised in this appeal in light of the
record before us, we have made the determinations which follow.
Looking first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and
39 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we note that claim 15
sets forth a receptacle “according to claim 13, containing a
propellant gas constituted by a non-liquefied compressed gas,”
and claim 39 sets forth a receptacle “according to claim 15,
containing compressed air.” The examiner is of the view that
claim 15 is indefinite because of the recitation therein of a
broad range or limitation (i.e., “propellant gas”) together with
a narrow range or limitation (i.e., “constituted by a non-
liquefied compressed gas”). Like appellant (brief, page 6), we
are of the opinion that claim 15 is clear and definite, and
unambiguously defines an aerosol receptacle as recited in claim
13 that contains a propellant gas which is specifically limited
to being a non-liquefied compressed gas. Thus, we find that the
metes and bounds of this claim are set forth with a reasonable
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007