Appeal No. 1997-2660 Page 14
Application No. 08/224,407
For the reasons explained in addressing the inadequacy of
the written description and the indefiniteness of claims 1-11,
our analysis of the claims leaves us in a quandary as to what
they specify. Speculations and assumptions would be required
to decide the meaning of the terms employed in the claims and
the scope of the claims. Therefore, we reverse pro forma the
rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We emphasize
that out reversal is based on procedure rather than on the
merits of the obviousness rejections. The reversal is not to
be construed as meaning that we consider the claims to be
patentable as presently drawn.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 are reversed. New rejections of claims 1-11
under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, are
added.
Our opinion contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007