Appeal No. 2003-1268 Page 3
Application No. 09/706,566
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, and to the respective positions articulated by
the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 19 to 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, but not the rejection of claims 9 to 18.
Claims are considered to be definite, as required by the second paragraph of 35
U.S.C. § 112, when they define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958,
189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
In the final rejection (pp. 2-3) and the answer (pp. 3-4), the examiner set forth his
rationale as to why claims 9 to 24 were indefinite.
The appellant has not specifically contested this rejection with respect to claims
19 to 24 in the brief or reply brief. In fact, the appellant (reply brief, p. 7) concedes the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007