Interference No. 103,036
We have reviewed the Burroughs et al. claims in light
of the arguments raised by the party Cataldi et al. We agree
with the party Burroughs et al. that most of the objections are
"nit-picking." For example, claim 1 recites "[a] battery having
a battery strength indicating means . . .comprising a
battery . . . ." The party Cataldi et al. urges that this claim
is indefinite and makes no sense because it recites "that a
battery comprises a battery." We agree with the party Burroughs
et al. that one skilled in the art would be able to ascertain the
metes and bounds of claim 1 with a reasonable degree of
certainty. Other objections to most of the remaining claims are
of a similar vein and we will not repeat them.
The party Cataldi et al. also urges that claims 35 and
36, which depend upon claim 33, and claim 40, which depends upon
claim 37, are indefinite for lack of antecedent support. Claim
35 and 36 recite "the temperature insulating means" of claim 33,
whereas claim 33 recites "a thermal insulating means." Claim 40
recites "the dielectric substrate" of claim 37, whereas claim 37
recites "a dielectric layer." In our view, the term, temperature
insulating means, finds reasonable antecedent support in the
previously recited thermal insulating means of claim 33. Like-
-16-
Page: Previous 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007