Ex parte WIDLUND et al. - Page 4

          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               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007