Appeal No. 2001-0041
Application No. 08/661,899
Claims 19, 26-28, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McGrath and Eisenmann.
Claims 29, 33-35, and 42-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ryan, Rovin, and Stewart.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Jul. 28, 1999) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Mar. 1, 2000) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed
Dec. 23, 1999) and the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 28, 2000) for appellant’s position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Claims 19, 26-28, 40, 41
We must reverse, pro forma, the section 103 rejection of claims 19, 26-28, 40,
and 41 because we consider the scope of the claims to be indefinite. If certain claim
language is not understood, then any attempt to apply art against that claim can only be
based on speculation. Rejections of claims over prior art should not be based on
speculation as to the meaning of 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). We
enter a new ground of rejection against the claims under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), infra.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007