Appeal No. 2004-1331 Page 5
Application No. 09/812,664
the examiner (answer, p. 4) were (1) "the angle" in independent claims 57 and 68 lacks
antecedent basis, and (2) "the hook and loop system" in dependent claim 67 lacks
antecedent basis.
Since the examiner has not set forth any basis to reject independent claim 61
and claims 62 to 66 dependent thereon, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 61
to 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The failure to provide explicit antecedent basis for terms does not always render
a claim indefinite. As stated above, if the scope of a claim would be reasonably
ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. See Ex parte
Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992). In our view, the lack of
antecedent basis for "the angle" in independent claims 57 and 68 does not render the
scope of those claims unascertainable by one skilled in the art. In that regard, one
skilled in the art would clearly understand "the angle of said substantially conical shape"
as referring to the vertex angle of the cone. In our view, the lack of antecedent basis
for "the hook and loop system" in claim 67 does not render the scope of that claim
unascertainable by one skilled in the art. In that regard, one skilled in the art would
clearly understand "the hook and loop system" as reciting a hook and loop system.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007