Appeal No. 2005-2422
Application No. 09/760,905
rejection, and not to an indefiniteness rejection. Thus, the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 10, 16 and 20 is reversed.
Turning next to the indefiniteness rejection of claims
11 and 17, the metes and bounds of ergonomics programs that
“conform to government regulations” would not be understood by
the skilled artisan because such regulations are subject to
change over time. The appellant acknowledges (specification,
page 11) that “the regulations may be modified.” A claim cannot
be definite when it has different meanings at different times.
Consequently, the indefiniteness rejection is sustained because
claims 11 and 17 fail to provide definite direction to the
skilled artisan trying to determine the scope of the claimed
invention.
Turning to the anticipation rejection of claims 1 through
23, we agree with the examiner’s findings (answer, pages 4
through 13) that Stern discloses (Figure 3; columns 5 and 6) all
of the claimed subject matter. Appellant’s arguments (brief,
pages 14 and 15) to the contrary notwithstanding, nothing in the
claims on appeal (claims 1 through 23) requires that an
ergonomics program must have six elements. Features that are
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007