Ex Parte REINBERG et al - Page 5




            Appeal No. 2000-0588                                                          Page 5              
            Application No. 08/824,110                                                                        


            approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with adequate notice                   
            demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately                      
            determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of                   
            infringement and dominance.  In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 1382, 166 USPQ 204,                    
            208 (CCPA 1970).  The examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art             
            would not have been able to accurately determine the metes and bounds of claims 19-               
            22.  We disagree with the examiner that the recited elements of these claims are not              
            linked together so as to set forth a functional device.  Thus, we shall not sustain the           
            examiner’s rejection of claims 19-22 under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112,               
            second paragraph.2                                                                                
                                            The prior art rejections                                          
                   Turning first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 19-22 as being anticipated by          
            Sirota, we note that claim 21 recites a means for generating a random timing signal and           
            claim 22 recites a step of generating a random timing signal.  Appellants’ specification          
            (page 7, lines 23-26) clearly sets forth a definition3 of “random” which distinguishes it         


                   2 For the reasons discussed below in the new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b),
            however, we have determined that the recitation of a means or step of selecting said message “in  
            response to said attention signal” in claims 19, 20 and 22 is inconsistent with appellants’ underlying
            disclosure and consequently renders the metes and bounds of these claims indefinite.              
                   3 In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage of claims the broadest reasonable
            meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the
            art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
            the written description contained in the applicant's specification.  In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44
            USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997).                                                               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007