Appeal No. 2003-1402
Application No. 09/034,969
rejection may be overcome by a properly submitted amendment changing each
occurrence of order receipt “position” to order receipt “location” in independent claims 1
and 20.
We also reject claims 30 through 33 as being indefinite. Part “d)” of base claim
30 recites “communicating with the remote communications unit....” However, “the
remote communications unit” -- there are two occurrences in part “d)” -- lacks a proper
antecedent in the claim because there are two “remote communications unit[s]”
previously set forth. In view of part “e)” of claim 30, and our review of other claims,
perhaps the intent for part “b)” of the claim is to set forth an association between the
entered order and a “customer,” rather than with a “remote communications unit.” On
the other hand, parts “b)” and “d)” of claim 30 appear to associate “the entered order”
with something else, rather than associating a “remote communications unit” with a
“customer,” as suggested by part “e).” In any event, the recitation “the associated
remote communications unit” in part “e)” also lacks proper antecedent basis in the
claim.
Further, “the remote communications unit at the remote receiving location” in
claim 30 appears to lack a proper antecedent in the claim. If, on the other hand, the
“communicating” is intended to be “at the remote receiving location,” then the claim
should clearly set forth the feature.
-12-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007