Appeal No. 1998-0408
Application No. 08/176,861
whether a particular strip of material, other than eight point
KIMDURA paper, would be covered by independent claim 1 or
claims 2-12 and 23-27 which depend therefrom. For example, as
discussed infra, it is impossible to determine with any
certainty whether the tear resistant glass fibre-reinforced
paper of Melin, while not disclosed as having a safety release
feature, inherently possesses the degree of tear resistance
required by these claims. We therefore conclude that claims
1-12 and 23-27 fail to reasonably apprise one of ordinary
skill in appellants' field of invention of their scope and
thus do not meet the definiteness requirement of the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1-12 and 23-27 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112.
Claims 20-22 and 28
The examiner's bases for rejecting claims 20-22 and 28
under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 are that (1)
appellants do not claim structure to support scanning the bar
code and (2) it is unclear how the bar codes are related to a
particular amount of goods and services (answer, page 3).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007