Appeal No. 2001-1404
Application No. 09/145,399
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We do not sustain this rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 7,
and 14.
Independent method claims 1, 6, and 7 are indefinite,
according to the examiner, since there is uncertainty as to
whether inferential language therein is intended as positive
method steps or not. In our opinion, the subject matter of
claims 1, 6, and 7, each claim being considered as a whole, is
clearly definite in meaning. In other words, the metes and
bounds of these method claims would readily be ascertainable
by one skilled in the art. Focusing upon the content of claim
1, it is quite apparent to us that the practice of the method,
according to the claim language, would require rotating rolls
and pressing of the looped label using heat and pressure,
irrespective of the fact that separate step recitations are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007