Appeal No. 1999-0403
Application 08/804,095
to have a face-to-face personal interview with the Examiner. .
. .” The matter complained of is clearly a matter within the
examiner’s discretion. In that we exercise no general
supervisory power over the examining corps, we decline to3
consider the issue of whether the examiner abused his
discretion in this matter. The relief sought by appellant
would appear to have properly been presented by petition to
the Commissioner under 37 CFR § 1.181.
The anticipation rejection of claim 7
based on Hoenstine
For reasons stated infra in our new ground of rejection,
we are of the opinion that claim 7 and the claims that depend
therefrom do not comply with the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. In general, when claims are indefinite, such that
there must be considerable speculation as to the meaning of
the terms in the claims, and assumptions as to their scope,
Compare In re Mindick, 371 F.2d 892, 894, 152 USPQ 566,3
568 (CCPA 1967) and In re Deters, 515 F.2d 1152, 1156, 185
USPQ 644, 648 (CCPA 1975).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007