Appeal No. 96-3543
Application No. 08/153,623
The rejections are explained in the Paper No. 12 (the
final rejection).
OPINION
New Rejection Entered By The Board
We are mindful that the appellants are free to claim
their invention in broad terms, and that they are entitled to
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
However, because a patentee has the right to exclude others
from making, using and selling the invention covered by the
patent, the public must be apprised of exactly what the patent
covers, so that those who would approach the area
circumscribed by the claims of a patent may more readily and
accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and
evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance. It is
to this that the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
directed (see In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA
1970)), and with regard to which we find the claims not to be
in compliance.
Therefore, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007