Appeal No. 97-4182
Application 08/429,150
152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1967) and In re Deters, 515 F.2d 1152,
1156, 185 USPQ 644, 648 (CCPA 1975). Thus, the relief sought by
the appellant would have properly been presented by a petition to
the Commissioner under 37 CFR § 1.181.
Considering now the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, it is the examiner’s position that:
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete
with indefinite and functional or operational language.
The structure which goes to make up the device is
merely inferentially claimed, or has not been clearly
and positively specified.
The preamble of the claims appears to direct to a
wall tent, whereas the body of the claims set forth the
method of erecting it. It is unclear what [applicant]
is claiming.
In addition, it is unclear whether applicant is
claiming a rain fly by itself or in combination with a
fabric canopy.
Moreover, the phrases “the correct length” on
line, “the correct position of a diagonal anchor” on
line 16 of claim 1, “the correct position of a lateral
anchor” on line 15, “the positions of all eight anchors
and the preset lengths of all eight guy ropes being a
function of, and calculated from, the dimensions of the
erect fly” on lines 10-11 of claim 1, “the correct
preset length” on lines 19 and 21 of claim 1 are
indefinite as being vague in their meaning. [Final
rejection, pages 2 and 3.]
We will not support the examiner’s position. The legal
standard for indefiniteness is whether a claim reasonably
apprises those of skill in the art of its scope. In re
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007