Appeal No. 1995-1304
Application No. 07/947,071
Claims 1, 3 through 7, 23, and 25 through 30 stand on
different footing. It would appear, on the surface, that the
claim language "physiologically relevant conditions" refers to
7.1 pH and 37EC. This follows from reading the claims in
light of the specification, page 10, lines 22 and 23. There,
the specification describes "physiologically relevant
conditions (7.1 pH and 37EC)." Looking under the surface,
however, we note appellants' statement in the Appeal Brief,
page 3, lines 4 and 5, that dependent claim 30 limits the
"physiologically relevant conditions" to pH and temperature.
This means to say that claims 1, 3 through 7, 23, and 25
through 30 are not limited to 7.1 pH and 37EC. In other
words, the case before us presents an ambiguity. Reading the
claims in light of the specification suggests that the
expression "physiologically relevant conditions" is limited to
7.1 pH and 37EC; whereas reading the claims in light of each
other suggests that the expression "physiologically relevant
conditions" is not so limited. On these facts, we agree with
the examiner that claims 1, 3 through 7, 23, and 25 through 30
are unclear and indefinite.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007