Appeal No. 95-1123
Application 08/028,757
Torng 4,807,115 Feb. 21,
1989
OPINION
The claims are subject to three rejections:
indefiniteness, non-enablement, and obviousness.
Indefiniteness
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. The examiner raises
eight points of ambiguity in support of the rejection.
Examiner’s Answer at 3-5.
The legal standard for definiteness is whether a
claim reasonably apprises those of skill in the art of its
scope. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754,
1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the present case, the examiner’s
objections point out the broad scope of the claims, but they
do not demonstrate indefiniteness. Therefore, we will not
sustain this rejection.
Non-enablement
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being non-enabled by the specification.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007