Appeal No. 97-0925 Page 7
Application No. 08/328,159
the combined vertical dimension of the cover is; (3) In claim 1,
the term "said cylindrical portion" lacks antecedent basis;
(4) In claim 1, it is unclear to which preceding term (e.g.,
ribs, cover, cylindrical portion) the term "which" refers back
to; (5) In claim 1, the phrase "the edge of which is parallel to
the axis of the center pole" is unclear as to where the edge is
being located and which element's edge is being recited; and
(6) In claim 9, there is no antecedent basis for "the combined
vertical dimension of the umbrella."
For the reasons set forth by the appellant (brief, pp. 7-
11), we conclude that the claims are definite since the scope of
the claims would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in
the art. Since the scope of the invention sought to be patented
can be determined from the language of the claims with a
reasonable degree of certainty, the examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5 through 9, 11 and 13 through 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The anticipation issue
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Rowsey.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007