Appeal No. 2000-0170
Application No. 08/811,124
is claimed and the prior art as we are obliged to do. Rejections
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be based upon "considerable
speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and
assumptions as to the scope of the claims." In re Steele, 305
F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). When no reasonably
definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in a claim, the
subject matter does not become obvious, but rather the claim
becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ
494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, we are constrained to
reverse, pro forma, the examiner's rejection of claim 43 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. We hasten to add that this is a procedural
reversal rather than one based upon the merits of the section 103
rejections.
Regarding claim 44, even if the combination of Lee and
Honeycutt were appropriate despite the protestations by
appellants (brief at pages 11 to 13), we are of the view that the
examiner has not made a prima facie case to meet the recited
limitations. Specifically, Honeycutt does not teach that the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007