Appeal No. 1998-1440 Page 7
Application No. 08/368,452
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claim 14 ultimately
depends from claim 4. Claim 4 specifies in pertinent part the
following limitations: "[a] process for removing an oily
material from polyether polyurethane foam ink pads used in
reservoirs of inkjet print cartridges ...." Claim 14 further
specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "said
dried polyether polyurethane foam pads are placed in
reservoirs of said ink jet print cartridges ...."
Accordingly, claim 14 refers to reservoirs that may be
different than the reservoirs of claim 4.
The failure of claim 14 to refer to said reservoirs of
said ink jet print cartridges, i.e., the reservoirs of claim
4, causes it to be indefinite. In view of this failure, we
are persuaded that claim 14, read in light of the
specification, would not reasonably apprise those skilled in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007