Appeal No. 98-1427
Application No. 08/511,310
1962). In the present case, a reading of claim 1 reveals to
us that this claim is indefinite within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The specific instances of
indefiniteness are set forth in a new ground of rejection,
infra. Since claim 1 is
indefinite, it follows that this panel of the board is unable
to
address the merits of the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based upon the patent to Pond.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Under the authority of 37 CFR 1.196(b), this panel of the
board enters the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1 through 6, 8 through 10, and 15 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. 2
2To be definite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
claims must set and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. Claim
language must be read in light of a specification, as it would
be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235, 169 USPQ 236, 238 (CCPA 1971).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007