Appeal No. 2006-1246 Page 9
Application No. 09/726,372
are as small as possible. Thus, the claims, as presently written, do not circumscribe the
boundaries of the claims with a reasonable degree of particularity.
In light of the above noted inconsistencies in each of the independent claims on
appeal, i.e., claims 28 and 55, we are of the view that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot
ascertain the boundaries of protection sought by the claims on appeal. Thus, we
determine that the appealed claims run afoul the requirements of the second paragraph of
§ 112.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 28 to 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph, as lacking
an adequate written description in the specification as originally filed is affirmed. In view of
the new rejection set forth above, the Examiner’s §§102(b) and 103(a) rejections are
procedurally reversed. All the claims stand newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007