Appeal No. 1999-2544 Page 5
Application No. 08/796,513
electrical heating" in claim 1 is not clear. The examiner
questions "[i]s it by the flow of heated water which is heated
by an electric heating means flowing over the surface of the
hollow fibers or by the wires embedded into the hollow fibers
which connected (sic) to an electric heating means" (final
rejection, page 2).
The appellant's response argues that a limitation
covering two possibilities does not make a claim unclear if
both possibilities are understandable and if the type of
heating in the claims is clearly set forth (brief, page 5).
Initially, we note that the purpose of the second
paragraph of Section 112 is to basically ensure, with a
reasonable degree of particularity, an adequate notification
of the metes and bounds of what is being claimed. See In re
Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970).
When viewed in light of this authority, we cannot agree with
the examiner that the metes and bounds of claims 1 through 11
cannot be determined because of the alleged deficiency noted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007