Appeal No. 2001-2288
Application 09/175,570
failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the
subject matter the appellant regards as the invention.
The recitations in claim 1 that “each pair of the
plurality of pairs of stanchions [defines] a plurality of
horizontally adjacent spaces for accepting a corresponding
plurality of adhesive roach traps” and that “each of the
plurality of adhesive roach traps [is] slidably placed between
adjacent pairs of the plurality of stanchions” do not make
sense. As shown and described in the underlying disclosure,
each pair of stanchions defines a single space for accepting a
single adhesive roach trap and each adhesive roach trap is
slidably placed between the stanchions of a single pair of
stanchions. The recitations in independent claim 10 that
“each pair of the plurality of stanchions [defines] a
plurality of spaces for accepting a corresponding plurality of
roach traps” and that “each of the plurality of roach traps
[is] slidably placed between adjacent pairs of the plurality
of stanchions” pose similar problems. Claims 2, 6, 9 and 11
are indefinite by virtue of their dependency from claim 1. 3
3Interestingly, since claims 2 and 3 accurately recite
the relationship between the stanchions and traps, they
conflict with parent claim 1 which does not.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007