Appeal No. 97-2725
Application 08/138,456
combination of the identifier with the storage tank. This
interpretation of the claim language is supported by the
recitation in line 6 that the primary mass is merely
“attachable” (emphasis added), not actually attached, adjacent
to the inlet cover.
As for the examiner’s additional ground supporting his
rejection of claim 22 under the second paragraph of § 112 (see
page 5 of the answer), his remarks concerning the placement of
the indicators in the primary mass confuses indefiniteness
with breadth. Obviously, the pattern for identifying a
particular petroleum product is arbitrarily selected. However,
the claim is not rendered indefinite simply because it does
not define that particular pattern.
Based on the foregoing analysis of the claim language, we
conclude that claim 22 is also definite in that it defines the
metes and bounds of the invention with a reasonable degree of
precision. See Venezia, supra. Accordingly, we cannot not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 22 under the second
paragraph of § 112.
With regard to the examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims
1 through 9, the applied references are devoid of any
suggestion of placing Susuki’s road-embedded block-shaped sign
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007