Appeal No. 1998-1540 Application No. 08/317,390 vague and indefinite...” [answer-page 5]. Clearly, it is no basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, to say that the parties disagree as to whether the claim reads on an elected invention. The examiner must point to specific claim language which he/she deems vague and indefinite. The examiner has not done so. We will not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS AND Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) Administrative Patent Judge ) eak/vsh 5Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007