Appeal No. 95-2783 Page 3
Application 08/026,504
1.2 fw < f1 < 2.4 fw ... (1)
[0.4 fw < f3/f2 < 0.8 fw ... (2)]
and the ratio of f3 to f2 is between 0.4 and 0.8 times
fw, . . .
(Unnumbered paper (Subst. Amdt. After Final) at 1-2, filed 22
Sep. 1994.)
B. The rejection
4. There is no reference-based rejection before us.
Instead, the examiner has rejected the claims under section 112.
Specifically, the examiner finally rejected claim 1 as vague and
indefinite because
the equation -- 0.4 fw < f3/f2 < 0.8 fw -- does not
make sense because [if] fw, f2, [and] f3 are in
millimeters then the first and the third expression[s]
are in millimeters; meanwhile, the second expression
(f3/f2) is dimensionless since (millimeters/milli-
meters) is dimensionless. Therefore, they are of
incomparable units.
(Paper 7 at 2.) On appeal, the examiner has also rejected
claim 1 for lack of an enabling disclosure for the same reason
that the examiner considers it indefinite. (Paper 14 at 4.)
5. Claims 2-5 depend from, and thus share the defect and
the rejection of, claim 1.
6. The Appellant argues (Paper 15 (Reply) at 2), and we
agree, that the basis for the new ground of rejection is
essentially the same as the basis for the indefiniteness
rejection.
7. We find that the examiner is technically correct that
formula (2) as written and claimed does not make sense. The
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007