Appeal No. 95-3317
Application No. 07/937,522
Claim 26 is directed to a "process for making a disposable
one-time use, inexpensive, safety pipet tube." The second
through eighth paragraphs of this claim recite steps involved
in making the tube, but the remainder of the claim, beginning
with "drawing a liquid sample into the tube," as well as all
of claim 27 dependent therefrom, is directed to a method of
using the pipet tube. Thus, the remainder of claim 26 noted
above, along with claim 27, is inconsistent with the "process
for making" recited in the preamble of claim 26 thereby
rendering claims 26 and 27 confusing. We recognize the
inconsistency implicit in our holding that claims 26 and 27
are rejectable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, as failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the invention with the holding on the
other hand that the prior art fails to render the claimed
invention obvious. Normally when substantial confusion exists
as to the interpretation of the claims and no reasonably
definite meaning can be ascribed to terms in the claim, a
determination with respect to the issue of obviousness is not
made. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 863 134 USPQ 292, 295
(CCPA 1962) and
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007