Appeal No. 2004-0622 Page 3
Application No. 09/875,602
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 14 and 16) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The indefiniteness rejection
The examiner contends that the language “said plate cylinder reaches said nip”
and “said roller reaches said nip” in claim 11 renders the claim indefinite “since it has no
meaning” (answer, page 3). On page 5 of the answer, the examiner explains that
[i]t is clear that the language has no meaning when
seen in view of the drawing and the specification since the
plate cylinder or the roller can never reach the nip before or
upstream relative to the applying point of the dampening
medium or ink on the surface of a cylinder. To one of
ordinary skill in the art, the language appears to state that
the plate cylinder and the ink applicator roller can be moved
toward or away from each other. However, this is not
appellant’s invention, and thus the meaning of the language
is unclear.
Initially, we note that the purpose of the second paragraph of Section 112 is to
basically insure, with a reasonable degree of particularity, an adequate notification of
the metes and bounds of what is being claimed. See In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378,
1382, 166 USPQ 204, 208 (CCPA 1970). When viewed in light of this authority, we
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007