Appeal No. 1997-1354
Application No. 08/432,610
of users" in claim 9 when "a second user" was recited in claim
8.
We also note that due to the difficulty in determining
exactly what is being claimed, it cannot be determined if
sufficient support exists in the specification.
Thus, we find claims 1 through 12 fail to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
Appellant regards as the invention.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is unconvincing as
presented and is reversed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed because
we are not able to apply the references of record to the
indefinitely claimed invention. A new ground of rejection of
claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
is entered under
37 CFR § 1.196(b).
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant
to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007