Appeal No. 1999-0510
Application No. 08/728,787
dependent claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 to 16, is included in this
rejection.
(B) Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 to 16 are rejected as being
unpatentable for failing to comply with the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
Claim 1 recites in lines 6 to 8 that "the body portion is
folded upon itself . . . so that the body portion is
interposed between layers of articles to maintain separation
between the layers of articles." Likewise, claim 7 recites in
lines 6 to 7 "said separator means . . . folding upon itself
so that the separator means is placed between layers of the
plurality of articles." Since the recitation of the separator
means being folded "upon itself" means, as appellant states on
page 2 of the reply brief, that it is folded to contact
itself, these recitations are self-contradictory in that the
separator cannot be folded into contact with itself so that at
the same time it is interposed or placed between layers of
articles. In view of this contradictory language, the
rejected claims are indefinite in that one of ordinary skill
would not reasonably be apprised of their scope. See In re
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007