Appeal No. 2006-1169
Application No. 10/005,728
Although appellants assert that the phrase, “instructions of
the PENTIUM microprocessor instruction set” had a “fixed and
definite meaning as a well established de facto standard of
compatibility…” (page 12 of the request for rehearing),
appellants have not set forth what, exactly, that “fixed and
definite meaning” is.
Since we cannot determine the metes and bounds of the
instant claimed subject matter because the term “PENTIUM” is not
specific as to any one processor or any one instruction set, and
the processor and/or instruction set which it describes is
subject to change, we continue to believe that claims 17, 26-31,
and 33-37 are indefinite within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
Since we are unconvinced of any error in our decision
regarding our affirmance of the rejection of claims 17, 26-31,
and 33-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, we remain
convinced of the correctness of our decision in summarily
reversing the rejection of these claims based on 35 U.S.C. § 103
in accordance with In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862, 134 USPQ 292,
295 (CCPA 1962).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007