Appeal No. 2003-1025
Application No. 09/224,918
we do not find the claim to be indefinite. One skilled in the
art would fully understand the if-then-else computer language
statement that forms the bulk of claim 1. An artisan would
understand that computer language syntax requires that, for
example, the determining step is directed to checking the
conditions at lines 8-11 of claim 1 with the determining step
being followed by the removing step at line 12 if any of these
conditions are met.
The problem in claim 1 is that Appellants have used computer
language syntax rather than English language syntax as required
by 37 CFR § 1.52 (b)(1)(ii). The Examiner should have objected
to the claims on these grounds and required that the claims be
rewritten in a proper English language syntax. We recommend that
the Examiner add such an objection should there be any subsequent
prosecution of these or similar claims.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.
III. Whether the Rejection of Claims 37-40 and 42-49 Under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 is proper?
It is our view that, after consideration of the record
before us, claims 37-40 and 42-49 are not indefinite for failing
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007