Appeal No. 98-1201 Page 7
Application No. 08/527,784
seem to limit it to the improvements, on the other hand some
of the recited improvements seem to be claimed in combination
with the exercise device, for example, the "rectangular flap"
is recited as being "attached along an upper edge to said
exercise device".
The obviousness issue
While we might speculate as to what is meant by the claim
language, our uncertainty provides us with no proper basis for
making the comparison between that which is claimed and the
prior art as we are obliged to do. Rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 should not be based upon "considerable speculation as to
the meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the
scope of the claims." In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134
USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). When no reasonably definite
meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in a claim, the
subject matter does not become obvious, but rather the claim
becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165
USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we are constrained to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007