Appeal No. 1999-2678
Application 08/704,705
than by appeal to this Board. See In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d
1395, 1403-1404, 169 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly,
we shall not review or further discuss the objection.
Turning now to the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
rejection, the examiner considers claims 12 through 30 to be
indefinite because
[i]n regard to claim 12, it is unclear where the
preamble ends, the claim body begins and what the
transitional phrase is, i.e. “with” on line 1 or
“comprising” on line 2? Lines 10-14 are inaccurate,
i.e. each opening does not have longitudinal, front
and rear part lateral edges and crotch part lateral
edges. Claim 14 is inaccurate, i.e. after “sheet”
on line 4, --,respectively-- should be inserted.
This last rejection also applies to claim 20. Also,
in regard to claim 21, the terminology “two
laterally separated side bodies” is unclear, i.e.
what are the side bodies separated from? each
other? The central body? Within themselves? In
regard to claims 24-30, the rejections of claims 12-
23 apply to similar language in these claims [final
rejection, page 2].
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims
to set out and circumscribe a particular area with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In re
Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
In determining whether this standard is met, the definiteness
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007