Appeal No. 1998-3006 Page 9
Application No. 08/586,977
"other elongated members such as non-nautical ropes, cables,
etc."
We agree with the examiner that the phrase "or the like"
in claim 9 is indefinite. Contrary to the appellants'
argument, the preamble language may not be ignored in
determining the question of whether a claim is definite under
the second paragraph of
§ 112. See Ex parte Kristensen, supra. Additionally, in the
present case, it is clear that the preamble recitation of "or
the like" introduces an uncertainty into claim 9 to preclude
one skilled in the art from determining the metes and bounds
of the claimed subject matter. Compare Ex parte Kristensen,
supra. Accordingly, we must conclude that claim 9 does not
define the invention with the precision and particularity
required by In re Moore, supra, and In re Hammack, supra.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 7 and 9 to 11 under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007