Appeal No. 2004-2079 Page 9
Application No. 09/754,958
The structure would then have to be rejoined to form a new structure excluding
moiety “D”:
A B + C D' A B C D'
Moiety “E” would then have to be added to the end of the structure:
A B C D' + E A B C D' E
Appellants have cited no authority, and we know of none, that would permit a
dependent claim to modify the “comprising” language of the claim from which it
depends in such a manner.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite.
Claim 18
According to appellants (Brief, page 7), claim 18 “further limits moiety B to
specific chemical entities. Therefore, any rejections based on B are deemed to
be moot.” Claim 18 depends from claim 17. Notwithstanding, that this claim
limits the scope of the chemical entities encompassed by moiety “B” of this claim,
claim 17, as discussed above, is indefinite for reasons other than the scope of
moiety “ B”. Accordingly, claim 18 is indefinite for the same reasons set forth
above with regard to claim 17.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as indefinite.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007