Appeal No. 98-2069
Application No. 29/052,369
patentability of that claim against the prior art." Thus, we
view the scope of the appellant's design claim "The ornamental
design for audio signal processing unit substantially as shown
and described" to be of a different scope than the following
claim: "The ornamental design for audio signal processing unit
as shown and described." It is our inability to determine the
actual extent of this difference in scope that renders the
appellant's design claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which the appellant
regards as the invention.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject the
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is affirmed.
29
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007