Appeal No. 2000-0574
Application No. 08/876,321
The indefiniteness rejection
The examiner's basis for determining that claims 1-3, 8
and 9 are indefinite is that "[i]n claim 1, line 5, the phrase
'and a length greater than said rectangular planar base
member' is unclear as the specific comparative dimension of
the rectangular base is unknown" (answer, page 3). The
examiner's position is perhaps more clearly articulated on
page 7 of the answer, wherein the examiner states:
The examiner agrees a planar rectangular base has a
definite width and length, however the base also has
a thickness and the phrase "and a length greater
than said rectangular base member" is indefinite as
it is unclear which of the three dimensions of the
base is being referenced.
The purpose of the second paragraph of Section 112 is to
basically insure, with a reasonable degree of particularity,
an adequate notification of the metes and bounds of what is
being claimed. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166
USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). When viewed in light of this
authority, we cannot agree with the examiner that the metes
and bounds of claims 1-3, 8 and 9 cannot be determined because
of the phrase cited by the examiner. A degree of
reasonableness is necessary. As the court stated in In re
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007