Appeal No. 1997-2774
Application No. 08/080,471
authority, since no structure is explicitly recited, the
language of the claims does not insure with any degree of
particularity an adequate notification of the metes and
bounds. More specifically, it is unclear whether the claims
are to be interpreted as combination claims including a means
for accomplishing each step, as asserted by appellant, or
whether the claims are to encompass all structures capable of
accomplishing the steps of the methods from which they depend.
Accordingly, claims 28, 30, 33, and 37 are vague and
indefinite as well as non-enabled by the disclosure.
Also, in line 7 of claim 43, both "the scene captured"
and "the television camera" lack antecedent basis in the
claim, as there is no prior indication in the claim that a
scene is captured nor is there any prior recitation of a
television camera. Accordingly, claim 43 is vague and
indefinite.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims
28, 30, 33, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is
affirmed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1
through 14, 16 through 22, 24 through 34, and 36 through 44
20
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007