Ex Parte Tedford - Page 6


         Appeal No. 2004-1805                                                       
         Application No. 09/928,359                                                 




         II. The Anticipation Rejections                                            
              Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior              
         art under 35 USC § 102 or § 103 begins with determination of the           
         scope of the claim.  The properly interpreted claim must then be           
         compared with the prior art.                                               
              Because the appealed claims fail to satisfy the                       
         definiteness requirements of the second paragraph of § 112, it             
         reasonably follows that the examiner’s rejections under § 102              
         cannot be reached at this time.                                            
              To that end, the predecessor of our appellant reviewing               
         court has held that it is erroneous to analyze claims based on             
         “speculation as to the meaning of the terms employed and                   
         assumptions” as to their scope.  In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,               
         862, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA).                                             
              Consequently, in comparing the claimed subject matter with            
         the applied art, it is apparent that considerable speculations             
         and assumptions are necessary in order to determine what in fact           
         is being claimed.  Since a rejection based on prior art cannot             
         be based on speculations and assumptions, we reverse, pro forma,           
         the examiner’s § 102 rejections. Id.                                       
              It is noteworthy that is a procedural reversal rather that            
         one based upon the merits of the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections.               
                                                                                   
         III. Conclusion                                                            
              The 35 U.S.C. § 112 second paragraph rejection is affirmed.           
         Each of the anticipation rejections is reversed on procedural              
         grounds.                                                                   




                                         6                                          



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007