Appeal No. 2005-0934 Page 6
Application No. 10/414,060
from said top edge of said door, whereby said disengaged umbrella has use value in
maintaining said individual and packages dry during said departure from said
automobile.
The next basis for the indefiniteness rejection is that "[t]he claim starts with the
language 'For an umbrella' yet nothing is claimed that is for an umbrella." As set forth in
the preceding paragraph, the appellant is claiming a method for using an umbrella.
While a better introductory clause would be preferred, we see nothing in the current
introductory clause that prevents the scope of the invention sought to be patented to be
determined with a reasonable degree of certainty.
The last basis for the indefiniteness rejection is that "[i]t is not clear if the
applicant intends on claiming the car door as part of the present invention since the
applicant has included more structure for the car door." In our view, the claim makes it
clear that a car door having a top edge bounding a window is part of the claimed
method.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007