Appeal No. 1997-1431
Application No. 08/323,976
U.S.C. § 112. The claimed
weighting factors are not indefinite, they are simply broadly
recited. Any weighting factors would fall within the scope of
the claim.
The examiner makes several other points in which the
rejection under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is
justified based on a perceived lack of compliance with 37 CFR
§ 1.75(d)(1). As we noted above, we do not understand the
examiner’s objections under 37 CFR § 1.75(d)(1), and we do not
understand the examiner’s determination that lack of
compliance with this rule automatically justifies a rejection
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The examiner states that “it is the examiner’s
position that the claimed invention does not actually provide
an invention which would be useful to a skilled artisan to
determine the billing charges for a printing operation”
[answer, page 7]. Not only do we not understand this stated
position, but we fail to see what this position has to do with
the claimed invention being indefinite. We respond in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007