Appeal No. 98-2783
Application 08/450,009
meaning of the language in claim 1 questioned by the examiner and the
exact scope and content of these claims. This being the case, we are
constrained to reverse the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Hillstead, in light of the
holding in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962). We
hasten to add that this reversal of the examiner's prior art
rejection is not based on the merits of the rejection, but only on
technical grounds relating to the indefiniteness of the claims under
consideration.
To summarize our decision, we note that 1) the examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 10 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, has been sustained, and 2) the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, 6 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
based on Hillstead has not been sustained.
Since at least one rejection of each of the claims on
appeal has been sustained, it follows that the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 10 and 28 on appeal is affirmed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007