Appeal No. 97-2885
Application 08/384,847
Nor shall we sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 2 as being unpatentable over Sainio or
Steiner in view of Minschart.
For the reasons expressed below, claim 2 is indefinite.
Thus, the standing prior art rejection thereof must fall since
it is necessarily based on speculative assumption as to the
meaning of the claim. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63,
134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). It should be understood,
however, that our
decision in this regard rests solely on the indefiniteness of
the claimed subject matter, and does not reflect on the
adequacy of the prior art evidence applied to support the
rejection.
As for the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1,
the appellant's basic argument that the applied references
would not have suggested a method meeting the claim
limitations requiring a multicolor printing of a printed image
on printed material in at least two passes through a printing
machine wherein image signals picked up by an image pickup
device in a first pass of the printed material through the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007