Appeal No. 2005-0433
Application No. 09/982,481
§ 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants regard as the invention, and under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as appellants’ disclosure fails to provide written
description for the invention now claimed.
Base claim 31 recites “assigning records to every pixel in said columns....” The
language seems to require assigning a plurality of records to each pixel in the columns,
which does not appear consistent with formation of a “pixel bar chart.” The claim next
recites “applying a variable color to all of the pixels in all of the columns according to an
attribute of said records.” Applying a color to all of the pixels in all of the columns would
result in all pixels being of the same color. Whatever a “variable color” may be, it is
applied to all of the pixels in all of the columns -- as opposed to, for example, a unique
color applied to each pixel -- resulting in, again, all the pixels being of the same
“variable” color. We cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the coverage of at least
base claim 31.
Further, appellants’ Brief does not point out support in the disclosure for the
language of present claims 31 and 32. Cf. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5) (2004) (“Summary of
Invention. A concise explanation of the invention defined in the claims involved in the
appeal, which shall refer to the specification by page and line number, and to the
drawing, if any, by reference characters.”).
To comply with the “written description” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007