Interference No. 103,036
wise, the term dielectric substrate of claim 40 finds reasonable
antecedent basis in the previously recited dielectric layer of
claim 37. In our view, the scope of these claims would be
reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art. Cf. Ex
parte Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992).
We agree with the party Cataldi et al. that the
Burroughs et al. claim 31 is indefinite for lack of antecedent
support. Claim 31 recites "the insulating means" of claim 30,
whereas claim 30 recites "an air pocket." Since insulating33
means is a broader term than air pocket, the term, air pocket,
would not provide proper antecedent support for the term,
insulating means, of claim 31. We also agree with the party
Cataldi et al. that claim 50 is indefinite because the term
"coupling means" is not defined in the Burroughs et al.
specification. The specification does not show any structure for
the coupling means. We do not agree with the party Burroughs et
Claim 30 contains an obvious misspelling of the word "affect,"33
which can be corrected upon the resumption of ex parte prosecution.
-17-
Page: Previous 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007