Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 11
Application No. 10/145,226
17 define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with a reasonable degree of
precision and particularity as required by the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
However, there is no antecedent basis provided in parent claims 12 and 14 for
"end walls." Parent claim 12 recites both "a first pair of opposed side walls" and "a
second pair of opposed side walls" but not any "end walls." Thus, it is unclear if the
claimed "end walls" are referring back to one of the pairs of side walls or reciting
additional walls. As such, claims 26 and 27 do not define the metes and bounds of the
claimed invention with a reasonable degree of precision and particularity as required by
the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 16,
17, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed with respect to
claims 16 and 17 and affirmed with respect to claims 26 and 27.
The anticipation rejection based on Jacques '342
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 12 to 18, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by Jacques '342.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007