Appeal No. 1996-3670 Page 5
Application No. 08/217,063
Second, the examiner asserts, “[i]n the preamble of claim 2,
‘Apparatus of claim 1' lacks proper antecedent basis."
(Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellant argues, “Section 112
does not require further limitation of a particular apparatus
contained within the parent claim. The parent claim, overall, is
further limited." (Appeal Br. at 19.)
A claim is indefinite “where the language ‘said lever’
appears in a dependent claim where no such ‘lever’ has been
previously recited in a parent claim to that dependent claim. . .
.” Ex parte Moelands, 3 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Bd.Pat.App. & Int.
1987). Here, although the language “[a]pparatus according to
claim 1” appears in dependent claim 2, no such “apparatus” has
been previously recited in parent claim 1. Furthermore, the
parent claim includes more than one element that could be
interpreted as the referenced apparatus, e.g., a SERVER, a PC.
Therefore, we affirm the rejection of claim 2 as indefinite.
Third, the examiner asserts, “[w]ith respect to claims 3-6,
it is unclear how, or if, the multiple computers are
interrelated." (Examiner's Answer at 4.) The appellant argues,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007