Appeal No. 1999-1057
Application No. 08/848,719
disclosure. Further, when the referenced language of each4
claim is read in light of the overall disclosure, we conclude
that a reasonably definite meaning therefor cannot be
ascertained. As such, it is our view that these recitations
render the claimed subject matter indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph. We enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION,
infra, addressing this matter.
To assess the noted indefinite claimed subject matter
relative to the prior art applied in the examiner's respective
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
would require considerable speculation and assumptions on our
part as to what in fact is being claimed. Since rejections on
prior art cannot be based on speculation and assumptions, we
are constrained to procedurally reverse each of the examiner's
rejections on appeal. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63,
134 USPQ 292, 295-96 (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F.2d
1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970)). Being a
4The Martin declaration of February 27, 1998 uses the
language "form fitting" and "force fitting" (paragraph 8),
"form-locking" and "force-locking" (paragraph 13), and "form-
locking and/or force-locking" (paragraph 14).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007