Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 10
Application No. 10/145,226
ascertainable by those skilled in the art, then the claim is not indefinite. See Ex parte
Porter, 25 USPQ2d 1144, 1146 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1992).
With this as background, the specific bases for the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, are as follows (final rejection, p. 2):
Claim 16 recites the limitation ''the second walls'' in line 1. There is
insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation ''the second walls'' in line 1. There is
insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation ''the end walls'' in line 2. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation ''the end walls'' in line 2. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Initially, we note that none of the objected limitations actually appear in the
claims. However, claims 16 and 17 include the limitation "the first and second walls"
and claims 26 and 27 include the limitation "the pairs of opposed side walls and end
walls." We therefore view the examiner's rejection of claims 16 and 17 as being based
on the lack of antecedent basis for "second walls" and the examiner's rejection of claims
26 and 27 as being based on the lack of antecedent basis for "end walls."
In our view, antecedent basis for "second walls" is sufficiently provided by parent
claim 12 which recites "a second pair of opposed side walls." As such, claims 16 and
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007