Appeal No. 1997-1109
Application No. 08/250,223
locations, whereas the input device is ¡visually located on
the dispensing unit.¢ If the item switches and the input
device are the same, then we do not know whether a single
input device or a plurality of item switches are being
claimed. Accordingly, claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 26 are
indefinite.
In keeping with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b),
claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 26 are rejected under the second
paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112 for indefiniteness.
A claim should not be rejected over prior art if it is
necessary to engage in considerable speculation as to the
meaning of terms in the claim and assumptions as to its scope.
See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA
1962). Thus, as a result of the indefiniteness of independent
claim 1, and our inability to judge the merits of the elements
obviousness rejection of this claim, the obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 26 is reversed. 1
According to the examiner (Answer, page 6), Colson
1Although we have reversed the obviousness rejection
pro forma based on In re Steele, we note in passing that
Ishizawa teaches the placement of item switches adjacent to
shelves.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007