Ex Parte Sigl - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2006-0041                                                                           4                                        
              Application No. 10/037,377                                                                                                              


                                                         OPINION                                                                                      
                      We reverse with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, but affirm                                                 
              with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  Our reasons follow.                                                           
              A. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, ¶ 2                                                                                                   
                      The rejection of claims 1 and 13-15 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is                                                 
              based on the Examiner’s determination that, “the range of percentages of the coverage                                                   
                                                                                                                      Comment [COMMENT1]: I added a   
                                                                                                                      restatement of the rejection to the
              of the surface opposed to the body-faceable surface by the retainer flap is unclear.”                                                   
                                                                                                                      beginning of the sentence for clarity.  I
                                                                                                                      prefer not to rely on the heading alone
                                                                                                                      to introduce the subject matter.  I
              (Answer, Pg. 3).  This lack of clarity is due to what the Examiner perceives as an                                                      
                                                                                                                      changed “found” to “determine”  
                                                                                                                      because the examiner’s statement
                                                                                                                      touches on the legal question of
              inconsistency between two limitations found in the independent claims, i.e. the limitation                                              
                                                                                                                      indefiniteness and is not purely a
                                                                                                                      factual finding.                
              “covering greater than about 40 percent” and the limitation “covers a portion.”  (C.f.                                                  
              Claim 15, lines 8-9 and 16-17).  According to the Examiner:                                                                             
                             [I]f the flap covers 100% of the surface as set forth on lines 8-9                                                       
                      than [sic; then] the flap covers more than just a portion of the baffle                                                         
                      as set forth on lines 16-17. Note also claims 19, 22, last two lines,                                                           
                      and 25 which set forth the range being less than 100%.  In other                                                                
                      words, it is unclear whether 100% of the surface opposed to the                                                                 
                      body faceable surface is covered by the retainer flap or only a                                                                 
                      portion thereof.                                                                                                                
              (Answer, Pg.  3).                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                      Comment [COMMENT2]: No          
                                                                                                                      necessary.  We are reverseing on a
                      According to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, "[t]he specification shall conclude with one or                                              
                                                                                                                      different basis than argued by  
                                                                                                                      appellant.                      
              more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the                                              
              applicant regards as his invention."  The primary purpose of the definiteness                                                           
              requirement is to ensure that the claims are written in such a way that they give notice                                                

















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007