Appeal No. 2004-1304
Application 08/730,625
meaning of the claims is expressed with a reasonable degree of
clarity and particularity. In this instance, we do not agree
with appellants, and find that the recitations pointed to by the
examiner in claims 9 and 23 as lacking antecedent basis are such
as to render those claims indefinite, since the metes and bounds
of the claims cannot be reasonably ascertained.
In light of the foregoing, the examiner’s rejection of
claims 9 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, will
be sustained, but that of claims 1 through 8 and 25 through 28
will not be sustained.
Turning next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
2, 6 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
McNaughtan, we note that McNaughtan teaches or suggests a
temperature indicating device such as a spoon usable for feeding
or administering a medication to a patient wherein the feeding
end of the utensil may comprise a rigid base portion that is made
of metal (col. 5, lines 24-33) and a plastic thermochromic
coating provided over the rigid base portion, which coating is,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007