Appeal No. 96-1808
Application 08/204,119
The examiner argues that “Ph” in appellants’ claim 25 is
confusing and should be “pH” (answer, page 3). The examiner’s
understanding of the intended meaning of “Ph” indicates that
the term would have been reasonably clear to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Moreover, the examiner has not explained
why, in light of the appearance of the term as “pH” in
appellants’ specification (page 1, line 24; page 8, lines 12
and 13), “Ph” in appellants’ claim 25, when interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art in light of appellants’
specification and the prior art, would not set out and
circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity.2
The examiner argues that “media source” in appellants’
claim 26 is vague and indefinite because it could mean the
aspiration probe, the media liquid, the sample probe or a
media sample and, therefore, is a broad term (answer, page 3).
This is not a sound basis for an indefiniteness rejection,
2In appellants’ claim 25 in the appendix to their brief,
“pH” appears correctly, which indicates that appellants may
have considered the claim to have been amended to change “Ph”
to “pH”. In any event, upon return of the application to the
examiner, appellants and the examiner should amend claim 25 so
that “pH” appears correctly.
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007