Appeal No. 98-0024
Application 08/467,306
14, 16, 22 and 24 to be indefinite because they refer to an
ASTM standard, reasoning that "these factors could change in4
time and not be a specific limitation anymore" (final
rejection, page 3). This rejection is repeated on page 4 of
the examiner's answer, but is not discussed in detail on pages
6 to 8.
In any event, we do not consider that the reference to
the ASTM standard renders these claims indefinite. The ASTM
standard referred to in the claims is the one in existence
when the application was filed. Such standards are published
annually, and if later amended, the previous standard would
still be available. See the discussion of the ASTM in Gore &
Assocs. Inc. v. Int'l. Medical Prosthetics Research Assocs.
Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1241, 1244-45 (D. Ariz. 1990). Thus one of
ordinary skill could readily determine the bounds of claims
14, 16, 22 and 24. In this regard, we note that it is not
uncommon to recite ASTM standards or methods in claims. See,
e.g., In re Saether, 492 F.2d 849, 851, 181 USPQ 36, 38 (CCPA
These claims each recite "said flexible outer tube being high-density4
polyethylene qualified as type III, category 5, class C, selected from Grades
P23 and P24 as per ASTM D1248."
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007