Appeal No. 97-0754 Page 8
Application No. 08/408,478
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pelz. We emphasize
again here that claim 1 contains unclear language which renders
the subject matter thereof indefinite for the reasons stated
supra as part of our new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Normally, when substantial confusion exists as to the
interpretation of a claim and no reasonably definite meaning can
be ascribed to the terms in a claim, a determination as to
patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not made. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson,
424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). However, in this
instance, we consider it to be desirable to avoid the
inefficiency of piecemeal appellate review. See Ex parte
Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). Therefore, we will
decide, infra, the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 12 through 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in the interest of judicial economy. We
are able to do so since the disclosure of Pelz fails to address
matters of claim 1 that are definite in meaning.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 12 and 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pelz. Likewise,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 15 under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007