Appeal No. 2003-0931
Application 09/383,508
16 and 21) for the respective positions of the appellants and
examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.2
DISCUSSION
The explanation of the rejection in the final rejection and
answer indicates that the examiner considers the scope of claims
1 through 4, 6 through 12 and 19 to be unclear due to the
recitations of the “bays” in independent claims 1 and 19 and the
“docking locations” in dependent claim 10.3 According to the
examiner, these recitations are indefinite when considered in
conjunction with the underlying specification.
The second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requires claims to
set out and circumscribe a particular area with a reasonable
degree of precision and particularity. In re Johnson, 558 F.2d
1008, 1015, 194 USPQ 187, 193 (CCPA 1977). In determining
whether this standard is met, the definiteness of the language
employed in the claims must be analyzed, not in a vacuum, but
2 In the final rejection, claims 1 through 4, 6 through 12
and 19 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. Upon reconsideration, the examiner has withdrawn this
rejection (see page 2 in the answer).
3 Further mentions of the “bays” and “docking locations”
appear in dependent claims 9 and 12 and dependent claim 11,
respectively.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007