Appeal 2007-2140
Application 09/892,790
Patent 5,917,679
This does not make sense as the “separate air bearing platforms”
extend from opposite ends of themselves. Also lines 14 and 15 of claim 42
recite “said first side wall portion” and “said second side wall portion”
respectively. These items have no antecedent basis. Thus, it is unclear what
structure Appellants are actually claiming in claim 42 and its dependent
claims.
For the reasons supra, we reject of claims 42-51 under
35 U.S.C. § 112 using our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
We make no prior art rejection of claims 42-51 because the subject
matter encompassed by the claims on appeal must be reasonably understood
without resort to speculation. Presently, speculation and conjecture must be
utilized by us and by the artisan inasmuch as the claims on appeal do not
adequately reflect what the disclosed invention is. Note In re Steele, 305
F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection
cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art
would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of
claim language.); Note also In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ
494, 496 (CCPA 1970).
(2)
New Ground of Rejection of Claims 21, 30-32, and 41
Reissue claims 21, 30-32, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by each of the Ogishima, Strom I, and Dorius
patents. See Findings of Fact 42-47.
- 28 -
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013