Appeal No. 96-0811
Application No. 08/023,955
the patentability of inventions. Appellants’ request is
therefore denied.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.196(b), the following
new grounds of rejection are entered against claims 1 through
10 and 12 through 14:
Claims 1 through 10 and 12 though 14 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which appellants regard as their invention. The preamble in
each of the independent claims 1, 12 and 14 calls for a system
for aiding shoppers in a store so that in this sense the
system is defined as being exclusive of the store. In
contrast, the body of each of these independent claims recites
the store as a positive element of the combination. As a
consequence, the scope of the body of each of these
independent claims is inconsistent with the scope of the
preamble of each of these claims. For this reason alone claims
1 through 10 and 12 through 14 are indefinite.
Furthermore, it is well settled that a claim in an
application must accurately define the applicant’s invention
in order to satisfy the provisions in the second paragraph of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007