Appeal No. 2002-1163
Application 09/393,374
Thus, given the open-ended nature of the claims on appeal and the
multiple terms of degree or ambiguous ranges set forth in each of
those claims, we have no basis for precisely determining the
metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
As examples of our difficulty in understanding the scope of
the presently claimed subject matter, we note that Turner (col.
2, lines 4-6) discloses a putter head having a weight of 12
ounces (i.e., 18 x 2/3), while Hannon discloses (col. 3, lines
35-38) a typical shaft weight for a putter of about 3.5 ounces.
When questioned at the oral hearing held on March 4, 2003,
appellant’s counsel was unable to say with any degree of
certainty whether these parameters associated with putters in the
prior art fell within the metes and bounds of the claims on
appeal. Given the ambiguity of the multiple ranges in the claims
on appeal and lack of any precise guidance in the specification,
we conclude that the scope and content of claims 1 and 6 are
indefinite. Since claims 2 through 5 on appeal depend from claim
1 and claims 7 through 14 depend from claim 6, they too suffer
from the same indefiniteness.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007