Appeal No. 2001-0421
Application 08/926,835
The case of Anglo-American Extrusion Co. v. Ladd also does
not support the majority’s section 112 position. It is true that
this case held a method claim to be indefinite. Few details are
apparent regarding this claim since it was not reproduced.
Nevertheless, it is reasonably clear that the holding was based
on the fact that the method claim was considered indefinite
because it recited “an indefinite result [wherein] [t]hat result
is set forth as a product ‘comparable to’ the definitely
described product of a definitely recited method.” Id., 226 F.
Supp. at 300, 140 USPQ at 308. Because the majority’s concerns
regarding the appealed claims do not involve such an indefinite
result, the new section 112, second paragraph, rejection of these
claims is not supported by Anglo-American.
Thus, the majority has proffered no legal authority in
support of their specific rationale for considering the appealed
claims to be indefinite. This is not surprising since there is
no such authority. What I do find surprising and indeed
troubling is the majority’s belief that, “[g]iven the varying
claim interpretations of the examiner and appellants, it is
apparent that the claims do not particularly point out and
distinctly claim the invention.” Slip Op., page 10. Contrary to
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007