Appeal No. 2006-0472
Application No. 10/859,119
DISCUSSION
On this record, we cannot meaningfully reviewed the
aforementioned rejections since the scope of the claims on appeal
cannot be ascertained. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385,
165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970); In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862-
63, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962). Accordingly, we vacate the
aforementioned rejections and enter forth a new ground of
rejection against claims 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, pursuant to 37 CFR § 41.50(b)(2004).
Claims 14 through 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
and distinctly point out what the appellants regard as their
invention. We note that the claims on appeal require, inter
alia, that “the texturing unit includes means for directing a
fluid jet onto the nylon filaments of the BCF at a sufficiently
low fluid jet velocity and at a sufficiently high fluid jet
temperature to impart an alpha-crystalline content in the BCF of
at least about 45% and to obtain a yarn skein shrinkage of less
than about 0.50 inch (emphasis added).” See independent claim
14. In other words, the claims on appeal define a component of
the claimed texturing unit in a means-plus-function format.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007