Appeal No. 1997-0622
Application No. 08/414,051
standard may change at some future date. Stated differently,
appellants wish to cover any future standards, even those not
contemplated by the appellants on the filing date of the
application. Inasmuch as appellants are under a statutory
obligation to inform the public of the metes and bounds of
their claimed invention, we find that appellants have failed
to perform that obligation by presenting claims that leave
open the possibility of future coverage of some unknown
changes to the TIA standard. For this reason, we agree with
the examiner (answer, page 5) that claims 2 through 10,
14 through 18 and 21 through 26 are indefinite because they
fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim
appellants’ invention.
In a separate ground of rejection of claim 18, the
examiner indicated (answer, page 5) that the phrase “said
mobile identification information does not uniquely identify a
mobile station” is confusing because “if the mobile
identification information does not identify the mobile
station, then what does the mobile identification information
do?” Appellants’ disclosure states (specification, page 30,
lines 1 through 3) that “[t]he MIN information may be full,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007