Appeal No. 2000-0909
Application No. 08/784,752
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 27 through 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.3
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the
metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530
F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner’s statement of the rejection is as follows
(final rejection, pp. 2 and 3):
Claims 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter which applicant regards as the
invention.
[1] Claims 27-34 are incomplete for failing to
actually transferring [sic: transfer] discrete areas
as the preamble states. Such omission amounting to
a gap in the structure of the elements.
[2] Such phrases as "for transferring . . .”,
"includes at least . . .", "including at least
"includes a microprocessor . . .", et cetera are
merely the recitation of structural possibilities.
3 We note that the language “the foil” in claim 1, line 19 (as it
appears in the appendix to the main brief), lacks antecedent basis in the
claim and should properly read --the carrier--. This informality is worthy of
correction upon return of the application to the jurisdiction of the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007