Appeal No. 2006-1814
Application 10/365,314
OPINION
We pro forma reverse the outstanding rejections of claims 3 and 5 through 29
respectively rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103 since we have instituted a new
ground of rejection of these claims in accordance with the provisions of 35 CFR § 41.50(b).
Claims 3 and 5 through 29 are rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 as
being indefinite. Independent claims 3, 6, 7 and 8 make a substantial use of the suffix “-able”
such to render the claims indefinite as to whether the hood is actually attached to a cable
connector or not and as to whether the cable connector is mated to a card connector or not. In
the absence of being attached or mated together in the manner claimed, it is speculative as to
whether the hood is capable of adapting in any manner to constrain a portion of a first cable or a
portion of a second cable. In claim 6 the hood is stated to be merely “for” a cable connector but
not necessarily attached to the remaining elements recited in this claim. As to claim 6 as well,
the use of the word “for” leaves one to speculate what the physical relationship is of the hood to
the rest of the elements recited. Since these ambiguities are carried through to each of the
dependent claims, they all are rejected as well. It is evident to us that the claims are subject to
many interpretations, and that the metes and bounds of the claims are not readily discernible to
avoid infringement.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007