Appeal No. 2001-0331 Page 4
Application No. 09/122,982
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have carefully
considered the subject matter on appeal, the rejections advanced
by the examiner, and the evidence of indefiniteness and
obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, appellant's arguments
set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's rationale in
support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the examiner's answer.
Upon consideration of the record before us, we affirm-in-
part. We begin with the rejection of claims 1-11, 13-23, and 25-
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. as being indefinite.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes and
bounds of a claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956,
958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that the term
"automatically" is not clearly supported in the original
disclosure. The examiner states that the term does not
constitute new matter, but that the claims are vague and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007