Appeal No. 96-4041
Application 08/264,704
305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). When no
reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms
in a claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, but
rather the claim becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we
are constrained to reverse the examiner’s rejections of claim
3 as being unpatentable over the prior art. We hasten to add
that this is a procedural reversal rather than one based upon
the
merits of the rejection. We take no position as to the
pertinence of the prior art as applied by the examiner in his
rejection.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR 1.196(b), we make
the following new rejection.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which appellant regards as
the invention. Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further calls
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007