Appeal No. 2003-1572
Application No. 09/661,747
claim 10 is directed to an area of distribution of buckwheat hulls,
it is not clear how this limitation relates to the medically
effective “amount” limitation of claim 9, which reasonably appears
to be directed to a volume or quantity of buckwheat hulls. Stated
differently, the “distribution” limitation of claim 10 and the
“amount” limitation of claim 9 appear to be directed to different
parameters. Second, even if it is assumed that the “planar
distribution” limitation of claim 10 and the “medically effective
amount” limitation of base claim 9 relate to the same buckwheat
hull parameter, claim 10 merely further limits the subject matter
of base claim 9, and thus leaves unanswered the question of what
constitutes the boundaries of the “medically effective amount”
limitation appearing in base claim 9. Third, since it is not clear
that the “effective treatment amount” of claim 7 corresponds to the
“medically effective amount” of claim 9, it is not understood how
the “distribution” limitation of claim 10 serves to define the
scope of the “amount” limitation of claim 7.
In light of the foregoing, we consider that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the
terms “effective treatment amount” in claim 7 and “medically
effective amount” in claim 8 and 9 with a reasonable degree of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007