Appeal No. 1999-2446 Page 8
Application No. 08/705,592
surfaces that tend to stick together when wet and form a mass
of fragments that prevents flow of water through the bag, and
the wood fragments resist adhering to other wood fragments
within the container without becoming clogged with sediment
carried by the water." With respect to the other independent
claims on appeal (i.e., claims 14, 17, 23 and 25) the examiner
stated (answer, p. 5) that these claims were indefinite for
the same reason as set forth above for claim 6.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 7-8) that there is
nothing inherently ambiguous about the above-noted limitation
of claim 6 and that the examiner has not provided any
explanation as to why one skilled in the art would not
understand the meaning of the above-noted limitation of claim
6 when read in light of the specification. We agree. We have
fully reviewed the examiner's rejection and response to the
appellant's argument (answer, pp. 4-5 & 7-8) but fail to see
any reasoning as to why the claimed language fails to make
clear the boundaries of the subject matter for which
protection is sought. The appellant's specification (p. 3)
makes clear that hammer-milled wood fragments are preferred
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007