Appeal No. 2004-1827 Page 10
Application No. 09/467,396
define the metes and bounds of a claimed invention with a
reasonable degree of precision and particularity. See In re
Venezia, 530 F.2d 956, 958, 189 USPQ 149, 151 (CCPA 1976).
Each of independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite the
limitation, “is a customer compatible executable that is compiled
from pre-existing source code that includes inserted customer
specific messages.” This limitation is unclear because once a
“customer specific message” is inserted, the source code is no
longer pre-existing source code, but rather is a pre-existing
source code that has been modified. Thus, we find the language
of claims 1, 10 and 19 to be misdescriptive of the invention. We
observe that the specification includes original claim 5, which
recited “wherein the creating the customer compatible executable
step further includes the steps of: selecting generic source code
based on the specification file; modifying the generic source
code based on the specification file; compiling the modified
generic source code.” The language of original claim 5 is
consistent with appellant's disclosure. However, this language
is not recited in appellant’s independent claims 1, 10 or 19. As
claims 5 and 14 include language that corrects the indefiniteness
of the claims from which they depend, claims 5 and 14 have not
been included in the rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007