Appeal No. 98-0102
Application 08/030,734
parte Jackson, 1926 Comr. Dec. 102, 104 (Comr. 1924)
(premature final rejection) and In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892,
894, 152 USPQ 566, 568 (CCPA 1976) (refusal to enter
amendment).
Before comparing the prior art applied by the examiner
with the claims on appeal, we must first determine whether the
language of the claims is sufficiently precise that their
scope can be determined; in other words, whether they comply
with the requirements of 35 USC § 112, second paragraph.3
Each of the independent claims on appeal (1 to 3, 5 to 7
and 24 to 33) recites the step of, inter alia, “effecting the
reduced difference between the operating temperatures of said
heat supplier means and said heat absorber means,
substantially as permitted by said largely enveloping
construction” (instead of “heat supplier means” and “heat
absorber means,” claims 24, 25 and 27 to 29 recite “condenser
In reviewing the claims, we note that claims 26 and 29 recite a3
“thermoelectric” system having “hot junction means” and “cold junction means”.
This is evidently intended to refer to the solid state system disclosed on
page 18 of the specification, but the quoted terms do not have clear
antecedent basis in the specification, as required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). Such
antecedent basis should be provided in any subsequent prosecution.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007