Ex Parte Adams - Page 10


           Appeal No. 2007-0441                                                                      
           Reissue Application 10/155,945                                                            
           Patent 5,311,959                                                                          
       1   limited.”  MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Company,                         
       2   474 F.3d 1323, 1331, 81 USPQ2d 1661, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2007).                               
       3         The fundamental problem in this case is to determine the “scope” if                 
       4   any of patent claim 1.  Once that scope is determined, it can be compared to              
       5   the scope of reissue claim 1 to see if reissue claim 1 “enlarges” the scope of            
       6   patent claim 1.                                                                           
       7         Binding precedent tells us that a claim which is indefinite cannot be               
       8   unpatentable based on obviousness.  Rather, the claim is unpatentable as                  
       9   being indefinite.  See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 863, 134 USPQ 292, 295                 
      10   (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496                      
      11   (CCPA 1970).  We are of the opinion that cases like Steele and Wilson                     
      12   foreclose the Examiner’s observation to the effect that indefinite claims must            
      13   be examined giving the claim the broadest possible scope by essentially                   
      14   interpreting the claims as best as possible.  Examiner’s Answer, page 7.  The             
      15   subject matter of a claim which is indefinite cannot be compared to the prior             
      16   art to determine, e.g., differences between the claim and the prior art.                  
      17   Likewise, we are having a difficult time seeing how the claim could be                    
      18   compared to a device said to infringe the claim.                                          
      19         In this case, for example, no matter how hard one wiggles—like the                  
      20   stepsisters trying to squeeze into Cinderella’s glass slipper—one cannot read             
      21   the drawing figures on to patent claim 1.  The drawings simply will not fit.              
      22   In fact, no device would fall within the scope of patent claim 1 because it               
      23   requires an element to be both parallel and orthogonal (i.e., perpendicular) to           
      24   another element.  In the world of physics and geometry this is a “no-no.”                 


                                                 10                                                  

Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013