Ex parte HINKLE et al. - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2000-0503                                                                     Page 4                
              Application No. 08/902,031                                                                                     


              language (i.e., "essentially mostly") appearing in the claims.  While we might speculate as to                 
              what is meant by the claim language, our uncertainty provides us with no proper basis for                      
              making the comparison between that which is claimed and the prior art as we are obliged to do.                 
              Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be based upon "considerable speculation as to the                  
              meaning of the terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims."  In re Steele,                   
              305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).  When no reasonably definite meaning                         
              can be ascribed to certain terms in a claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, but                   
              rather the claim becomes indefinite.  In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496                     
              (CCPA 1970).  Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse, pro forma, the examiner's 35                         
              U.S.C. § 103 rejections of independent claims 1, 58 and 70 as well as claims 47-57, 59-69 and                  
              71-82 which depend therefrom and are likewise indefinite.  We hasten to add that this is a                     
              procedural reversal rather than one based upon the merits of the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections.1                  




                      Turning next to the examiner's rejection of independent claims 83, 96 and 145 under 35                 
              U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Toth, we note, at the outset, that appellants (see brief,              

                      We note of interest the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 4,416,384, issued November 22, 1983 to Bjurling,1                                                                                                     
              which is of record in this application, with regard to the suspension of a tank.  Bjurling's disclosure of an  
              arrangement comprising suspension plates 8 welded to the ends of the tank which transmit substantially all of the
              weight of the tank and secondary supports (saddles 5 and supports 6), wherein the tank does not come to be supported
              to any appreciable extent by the saddles and supports during normal use and handling (column 2, lines 28-39, and
              column 3, lines 5-16), appears particularly pertinent to the "essentially mostly suspending" limitations of these
              claims.                                                                                                        







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007