Appeal No. 96-4045
Application 08/441,984
paragraph of claim 23 refers to deformed portions which are
not present in the unitary planar blank form. Thus, the
independent claims on appeal are patently ambiguous as to
whether an intermediate planar blank form is being claimed or
a finished article -- a door lock bracket -- which is not a
planar form is being claimed. In view of this situation,
it is our opinion that no definite meaning can be ascribed to
the claim limitation of a “unitary planar blank form” when
read in conjunction with the preamble and the second paragraph
of claim 22 or the second and third paragraphs of claim 23.
When this is true of the terms in a claim, the subject matter
of the claim cannot be held to be anticipated, but rather the
claim becomes indefinite. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382,
1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Since it is clear to us
that considerable speculation and assumptions are necessary to
determine the metes and bounds of what is being claimed, and
since the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 cannot be based on speculation and assumptions, we are
constrained to reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 22
and 23 and claims 4, 6, and 21 which depend from claim 23.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007