Appeal No. 1998-2356
Application 08/373,860
claim 9 and “the pole” of claim 1 related? In claims 11 through 14 and 16 through 18, the use of the
term “varies” renders the claimed subject matter indefinite since it is unclear exactly how the “light
source power” varies in the manner set forth in these claims, that is, are there a range of light sources
that a given balloon can carry, or does the power of a given light source actually vary, e.g., from a few
hundred watts up to about 6,500 watts (claim 11).2
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 1.196(b), we enter the following new ground of rejection
against appellant's claims 1 through 19 on appeal:
Claims 1 through 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the reasons
explained above, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which
appellant regards as the invention.
Turning to the examiner's rejections of the appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we
emphasis again that these claims contain unclear language which renders the subject matter thereof
indefinite for reasons stated supra as part of our new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
2With regard to the subject matter set forth in claims 1, 4 and 9 on appeal, we direct
appellant’s attention to 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a), noting that the drawings of the application “must show
every feature of the invention specified in the claims.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007