Appeal 2006-3069
Application 10/661,273
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-7, and 17-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, 14, 15, 17-19, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kuroda.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-13, 15, and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Onda.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
ISSUES
We decide the following issues we have determined are dispositive in
this appeal:
1. Whether independent claims 1 and 17 are indefinite as being
misdescriptive of the disclosure.1
2. Whether the cited Kuroda reference meets all the structural
limitations of the representative claim.
1 Although the terms of a claim may appear to be definite, inconsistency
with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an
otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re
Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 1000-01, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971) (“No claim
may be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on
which it is based.”).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013