Appeal No. 2004-0407
Application No. 09/062,053
REJECTION III
The rejection is affirmed. Although we have found, supra,
that there is descriptive support for the phrase in question, we
nevertheless agree with the examiner that the phrase is
indefinite in scope within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. While appellants’ specification may describe some
specific types of treatments that may degrade essence quality to
an unacceptable degree, the degree of degradation is a relative
factor which appears to be extremely difficult to quantify.
Accordingly, it is exceedingly unclear what specific
temperatures, holding times, or other conditions not specifically
identified by appellants, would degrade essence quality below the
threshold of acceptability.
Thus, the phrase in question is indefinite in scope to the
extent that it does not set out the metes and bounds of
appellants’ claimed invention with sufficient precision and
particularity to determine which operations or conditions, other
than those mentioned in appellants’ specification, would degrade
essence quality to an unacceptable degree.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007