Appeal No. 2001-0205 Page 11
Application No. 08/692,016
6
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. It is our opinion that the
inconsistency noted above would cause one of ordinary skill in the art not to be able to
determine the metes and bounds of the claims, and therefore claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 13-15
must be considered to be indefinite on this basis.
We reach the same conclusion, for the same reason, with regard to independent
apparatus claim 16. In this case the preamble of the claim states that the invention is
directed to “[a] trash bag for use with a hollow frame” (emphasis added). However, the
body of the claim not only positively recites the structure of the bag, but also positively
recites the frame, stating that the knot is “engaged with the frame,” the bag is “received
upon said rear exit end of said frame and fitted over a majority of said frame” and “extends
beyond said hollow frame,” the “holes [in the frame] each having a size corresponding with
said knot,” and the knot “is drawn through said hole within walls of said frame and securely
but detachably retained therein.” The issue again arises as to whether the claim is
directed to a single element or to a combination of two elements, which renders the claim
indefinite.
The phrase “said knots having a diameter so as to substantially support the weight
of said debris when said trash bag is full” also causes independent claims 1 and 16 and
dependent claims 2 and 4-10 to be indefinite, for two reasons. First, as we stated above,
6 In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007