Ex Parte Zhao et al - Page 15




                  Appeal No. 2003-0667                                                                                        Page 15                     
                  Application No. 09/514,699                                                                                                              

                  Administrative Patent Judge Pak, Concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.                                                             
                  I concur with the majority’s conclusions involving the affirmance of the examiner’s § 103                                               
                  rejections.  However, I do not share the majority’s position that claim 10 violates the                                                 
                  requirements set forth in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.                                                                      
                  35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, states:                                                                                              
                           The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing and                                             
                           distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his [or her]                                             
                           invention.                                                                                                                     

                  This statute is interpreted as setting forth two requirements, first, a claim must be written with                                      
                  sufficient particularity and distinctiveness and second, a claim must recite what the appellants                                        
                  regard as their invention.  Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 1377, 55 USPQ2d                                             
                  1279, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).    The former requires a determination as to whether the claim is                                          
                  definite.  Id.  The latter requires a determination as to whether the appellants claim a certain                                        
                  subject matter contrary to what they regard as their invention.  Allen Engineering Corp v.                                              
                  Bartell Indus., Inc., 299 F.3d 1336, 1349 and 63 USPQ2d 1769, 1776 (Fed. Cir. 2002).                                                    
                           According to the majority (the decision, page 11);                                                                             
                                             there is an inconsistency in meaning between claim 10 and                                                    
                                    the disclosure.  Claim 10 recites that the reclaimed undeveloped                                                      
                                    developer cake “is separated” from the second liquid developer.                                                       
                                    The specification, on the other hand, describes that the reclaimed                                                    
                                    developer cake “can be kept separated” from the second liquid                                                         
                                    developer specification at p. 14, ll. 12-16).  The words “is                                                          
                                    separated” connote a step of dividing whereas the words “is kept                                                      
                                    separated” connote a step of preventing contact.  The absence of                                                      
                                    the word “kept” in the claim gives the claim a different meaning                                                      
                                    from that advanced by the specification and, therefore, claim 10                                                      
                                    fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter                                               
                                    which the Appellants regard as their invention.                                                                       









Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007