Appeal No. 2005-0934 Page 5
Application No. 10/414,060
boundaries of the subject matter for which protection is sought. As noted by the Court
in In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213-14, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971), a claim
may not be rejected solely because of the type of language used to define the subject
matter for which patent protection is sought.
One of the examiner's basis for the indefiniteness rejection is that "[i]t is unclear if
the claim is meant to be a structural claim or a method claim." Our review of claim 1
reveals that it is a method claim, not an apparatus claim. While claim 1 is not written as
artfully as possible, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be understood
with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity. In our view, claim 1, as a whole,
is drawn to a method for using an umbrella in an open condition during departure of an
individual with packages through an open door of an automobile on a rainy day, the
improved method comprising the steps of: (1) attaching a bottom end of a handle of said
open umbrella to a top edge of said open door bounding a window of said door to
provide an operative attached position of said umbrella to said top edge bounding said
door window providing standing room for said departing individual beneath said
umbrella; (2) operatively positioning both hands of said departing individual to engage
about said packages during departure through said open door; and (3) removing one
hand of said individual from said engaged operative position about said packages and
assuming an operative position in contact with and disengaging said handle bottom end
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007