Appeal No. 97-2712
Application 08/285,349
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Under the authority of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), this panel of
the board introduces the following new grounds of rejection.
Claims 4 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite. The language “two 5
or more” in its context of usage in claim 4, line 3, is not
understood, rendering the claim indefinite in meaning. As to
claim 24, the preamble indicates a “method of storage of
materials,” however, the body of the claim fails to include a
step providing material to the specified containers. Thus, what
is being claimed is in doubt. We also note an inconsistency in
claim 24 in the recital of “external ring means” (line 6) and
“said shoulder means” (lines 7, 8, and 10).
5Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes
and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007