Appeal No. 2000-0293 Page 5
Application No. 08/766,862
indefinite because it is not clear as to what
structure is encompassed or excluded by such
term “like”. [examiner’s answer at page 4].
The specification teaches that the jewelry organizer of the
invention has an upper surface 12 for storing and displaying several
types of jewelry (Specification at page 1). The specification
indicates that the jewelry that is stored in the organizer may be
necklaces, earrings, watches, bracelets and rings (Specification at
page 3). We agree with the appellant that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have understood the term “such as” in claims 1, 8
and 14 to indicate examples of the types of jewelry that can be
stored in the organizer. As such, in our view, the scope of claims
1, 8, and 14 can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, and 4 through 17 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
In regard to the language “plate-like structure” in claim 2, we
are of the opinion that the scope of the claimed subject matter
cannot be determined from this language with a reasonable degree of
certainty. Specifically, it is not clear whether this language
refers to dinner plate structure, flat rectangular plate structure,
picnic plate structure which includes compartments or some other
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007