Appeal No. 1999-2812 Page 8
Application No. 08/724,049
We agree with the examiner that the lack of clear
antecedent basis for the above-identified terms renders claims
16 to 28 indefinite under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. In that regard, it is our view that the metes and
bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity since it is
unclear if the appellants are claiming (1) "first and second
bar means" or "first and second bars," and (2) "third and
fourth bars" or "third and fourth bar means." Additionally,
we note that the use of the term "means" may invoke the
provisions of the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 to
determine the scope and meaning of a claimed element.
For the reasons set forth above, the appellants' argument
regarding this specific rejection (brief, pp. 7-8) is
unpersuasive. In addition, we note that the refusal by the
examiner to enter the appellants' amendment after final
rejection
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007