Appeal No. 94-3823
Application 07/812,249
In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 503-04, 190 USPQ 214, 219 (CCPA
1976); see also In re Ambruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678, 185 USPQ 152,
154 (CCPA 1975). However, for this rejection, the examiner
has not explained why an "undue" amount of experimentation is
necessary given what was known in the art, as demonstrated by
Highleyman. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Indefiniteness rejection
The examiner rejected claims 1-15, under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, for indefiniteness. In particular, the
examiner states:
In all the claims, the use of the terms
“predominate", "non-predominate", and "non-distracting"
is still indefinite. . . . What is distracting to one
person may, or may not be distracting to another
person. Similarly, the terms predominate and non-
predominate are subjective terms especially in the
way used by the applicant. . . .
The use of the phrase "small amount" (for
instance, in claim 1, line 5) falls in this same
category. That is, the use of the term small
recites an unbased comparison.
Claims 11-15 are unclear. . . . What is meant by
"A method of permitting recognition" is unclear. . . .
The recitation of steps such as "providing a first
means for processing" are [sic] unclear. The steps,
worded in this way, could be directed to a method that
takes place in a factory that assembles the invention,
or they could possibly be directed to a programmer
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007