Appeal No. 96-0987
Application No. 08/226,467
Turning to the examiner's rejections of the claims on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that 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 as to the issue of
obviousness is not made. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 863,
134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). However, in this instance,
we consider it to be desirable to address this issue in order to
avoid the inefficiency of piecemeal appellate review. See Ex
parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537, 540 (Bd. App. 1984). Therefore, we
have reached the determination below with respect to the issue of
obviousness of the claims on appeal in the interest of judicial
economy. In order to reach the question of obviousness with
respect to the claims on appeal, we have necessarily applied the
interpretation to appealed claim 8 that it is a product-by-
process claim reciting the layer of viscoelastic resin coated on
the internal surface of the impact wall by molding using a
reaction molding process which necessarily requires the
viscoelastic resin be capable of being molded in a reaction
injection molding process. We believe this interpretation to be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007