Appeal No. 2003-0697
Application 09/750,088
above-noted rejections, we refer to the Brief and to the Answer
for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons which follow, we will not sustain the
examiner’s § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-8, but
we will sustain the examiner’s § 102 and § 103 rejections of
claims 1-8.
On page 4 of the Answer, the examiner describes his
position regarding the § 112, second paragraph, rejection with
the following language:
Claims 1-8 are narrative in form and replete
with indefinite and functional or operational
language. It is not even clear whether
appellant is reciting a method or apparatus.
The claims appear to merely recite air or any
combination of air, liquid, and solids
passing through a microwave active space
enclosed in a microwave compatible material.
The structure which goes to make up the
device must be clearly and positively
specified. All the appealed claims recite
“the machine described” and therefore appear
to be omnibus claims. Such claims are
indefinte [sic] because they fail to point
out what is included or excluded by the claim
language.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007