Appeal No. 2006-0909 Page 6
Application No. 09/282,320
disclosure of the appellants' application reasonably conveys to the artisan that the
appellants had possession, at the time of the invention, of either of the aforementioned
limitations to the examiner and the appellants.
Furthermore, a claim is indefinite "where the language ‘said lever’ appears in a
dependent claim where no such ‘lever’ has been previously recited in a parent claim to
that dependent claim . . . ." Ex parte Moelands, 3 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Bd.Pat.App. &
Int. 1987).
Here, although claim 18 includes the language "the transparent solid center
area," (emphasis added), no such transparent solid center area has been previously
recited therein. Like the possession issues, supra, we leave the issue of whether the
claims lack antecedent basis to the examiner and the appellants.
B. REJECTIONS
"[T]o assure separate review by the Board of individual claims within each group
of claims subject to a common ground of rejection, an appellant's brief to the Board
must contain a clear statement for each rejection: (a) asserting that the patentability of
claims within the group of claims subject to this rejection do not stand or fall together,
and (b) identifying which individual claim or claims within the group are separately
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007